RESUMO
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How resin-based material and a light-activation protocol influence the mechanical properties of materials used to cement glass fiber post-and-cores in endodontically treated teeth is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of immediate or 5-minute delayed light activation on the mechanical properties of dual-polymerizing resin cements and dual-polymerizing resin-core materials compared with bulk-fill composite resins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine resin-based materials were tested: 4 dual-polymerizing resin-core materials, (Allcem Core; FGM, LuxaCore Z; DMG, Rebilda DC; VOCO, and (Clearfil DC Core Plus; KURARAY), 3 dual-polymerizing resin cements, (RelyX Universal; 3M ESPE, RelyX U200; 3M ESPE, and Allcem Dual; FGM), and 2 bulk-fill composite resins, (Opus Bulk Fill APS; FGM, and Filtek One Bulk Fill; 3M ESPE). The dual-polymerizing materials were light activated using both protocols. The postgel shrinkage (Shr), flexural strength (FS), elastic modulus (E), Knoop hardness (KH), degree of conversion (DC), and depth of polymerization (DoP) were measured (n=10). The data for Shr, FS, E, and DoP were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, and for KH and DC using 2-way repeated measurement ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). RESULTS: A 5-minute delay before light-activation significantly reduced Shr for all materials (P<.001). Increasing the depth significantly reduced the KH for all materials (P<.001). Bulk-fill composite resins and dual-polymerizing resin-core had higher KH values than dual-polymerizing resin cements (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed 5-minute light-activation reduced postgel shrinkage and had no negative effect on mechanical properties. Dual-polymerizing resin-core materials exhibited higher KH values than dual-polymerizing resin cement and mechanical properties similar to those of bulk-fill composite resin.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: Contamination of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) during mouthguard fabrication can cause delamination. The study evaluated the effects of different EVA surface treatments on the contact angle, laminate bond strength, and elongation capacity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of two bonded EVA plates were prepared (n = 30). The Shore A hardness of standardized EVA plate specimens was measured before and after thermo-plasticization. The EVA plates were randomly allocated to one of five different surface treatment groups: no treatment (control); isopropyl alcohol, 100%; chloroform, 99.8%; self-cure acrylic resin monomer (methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and chemical initiator-amine type); and ethyl alcohol, 70%. The maximum breaking force and elongation at the site of fracture were recorded using a universal testing machine. The contact angle surface was measured using ImageJ software. Scanning electron microscopy of the EVA surface was performed. The laminate bond strength was obtained by dividing the maximum breaking force by the bonding area between the two EVA plates. The laminate bond strength and maximum elongation data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey's and the Dunnet test. The failure mode data was analyzed using the chi-square test (α = .05). RESULTS: EVA surface treatment significantly influenced the laminate bond strength and maximum elongation (p < .001). The control group had a higher contact angle and significantly lower laminate bond strength and maximum elongation than the other groups (p < .001). The acrylic resin monomer and chloroform-treated specimens had similar laminate bond strength and maximum elongation. The acrylic resin monomer group had a significantly lower contact angle (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All treatments had a significantly higher laminate bond strength and maximum elongation than the control group. The acrylic resin monomer and chloroform groups had a significantly higher laminate bond strength and maximum elongation and the acrylic resin monomer group had a lower contact angle than the other groups. The chloroform should be avoided due its hazardous effects.