European journal of dentistry · 2013
The effect of different organic solvents on the degradation of restorative materials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martos Josué, Machado Silveira Luiz Fernando, Silveira Carina Folgearini, Suita de Castro Luis Antonio, Ferrer-Luque Carmen María
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the solubility of three restorative materials exposed to the different endodontic solvents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The organic solvents eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and orange oil, with distilled water as the control group was utilized. The restorative materials light-cured resin (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE), light-cured-resin-reinforced glass ionomer (Riva Light Cure LC/Southern Dental Industries SDI]) and resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer/3M ESPE) were analyzed. A total of 50 disks containing specimens (2 mm × 8 mm Ø) were prepared for each of the three classes of restorative materials, which were divided into 10 groups (n = 5) for immersion in eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, orange oil or distilled water for periods of either 2 min or 10 min. The means of restorative material disintegration in solvents were obtained by the difference between the original preimmersion weight and the postimmersion weight in a digital analytical scale. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance while the difference between the materials was analyzed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The significance level set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Vitremer showed the highest solubility, followed by Riva LC, and these were statistically different from eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and distilled water (P < 0.05). Regarding the immersion time in solvents, there were no significant differences between the two tested periods (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The solvents minimally degraded the composite resin, although they did influence the degradation of both resin-modified glass ionomer resin and resin reinforced with glass ionomer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The organic solvents eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and orange oil, with distilled water as the control group was utilized. The restorative materials light-cured resin (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE), light-cured-resin-reinforced glass ionomer (Riva Light Cure LC/Southern Dental Industries SDI]) and resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer/3M ESPE) were analyzed. A total of 50 disks containing specimens (2 mm × 8 mm Ø) were prepared for each of the three classes of restorative materials, which were divided into 10 groups (n = 5) for immersion in eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, orange oil or distilled water for periods of either 2 min or 10 min. The means of restorative material disintegration in solvents were obtained by the difference between the original preimmersion weight and the postimmersion weight in a digital analytical scale. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance while the difference between the materials was analyzed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The significance level set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Vitremer showed the highest solubility, followed by Riva LC, and these were statistically different from eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and distilled water (P < 0.05). Regarding the immersion time in solvents, there were no significant differences between the two tested periods (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The solvents minimally degraded the composite resin, although they did influence the degradation of both resin-modified glass ionomer resin and resin reinforced with glass ionomer.