Comparison of Elasticity Modulus and Nanohardness of Various Dental Restorative Materials

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorOzan, Gunce
dc.contributor.authorMert Eren, Meltem
dc.contributor.authorYıldırım Bılmez, Zuhal
dc.contributor.authorTugce Gurcan, Aliye
dc.contributor.authorYucel Yucel, Yasemin
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-06T18:01:19Z
dc.date.available2025-02-06T18:01:19Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentAltınbaş Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Restorative materials are under constant loadings from mastication hence, it is important to have the knowledge of structural properties of the restorative materials to have long-term success on restorations. Therefore, the aim is to compare the nanohardness and elastic modulus values of various restorative materials. Methods: Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a high viscosity glass ionomer-Equia Forte Fil (EFF), a compomer-Dyract (DXP), a hybrid ionomer-Geristore (GS), a giomer bulk-fill-Beautifil-Bulk (BB), two bulk-fill composites-Venus Bulk-fill (VB) and Sonic Fill 2 (SF), and a nanohybrid composite-Z250. Samples of each of the tested materials (n=9) were examined under nanoindentation to evaluate elasticity modulus (Er) and nanohardness (Hnano) scores. One of the samples had undergone through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. Data were analyzed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: SF had the highest elasticity modulus, followed by Z250 and DXP, without any statistical differences. However, GS had the lowest elasticity modulus, followed by EFF (P<0.001). Among nanohardness scores, there is no significant difference between VB, EFF, DXP, Z250, and BB groups. While SF showed the highest, GS had the lowest nanohardness scores. SEM images showed the differences between filler sizes and shapes. Conclusion: Main structural differences between glass ionomer-based and resin-based materials determined significant differences among related parameters of the restorative materials. © 2021, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.22038/JDMT.2021.60978.1480
dc.identifier.endpage241en_US
dc.identifier.issn2322-4150
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85186482736
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage232en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.22038/JDMT.2021.60978.1480
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12939/5306
dc.identifier.volume10en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMashhad University of Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dental Materials and Techniquesen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.snmzKA_Scopus_20250206
dc.subjectGlass ionomersen_US
dc.subjectHybrid materialsen_US
dc.subjectNanoindentationen_US
dc.subjectResin compositesen_US
dc.titleComparison of Elasticity Modulus and Nanohardness of Various Dental Restorative Materialsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu