MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 180 samples were used for polymerization shrinkage (buoyancy and optical methods) and degree of conversion tests in which they were divided into Group 1, nanofilled composite (Filtek-Z350- XT; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN 55144-1000, USA), Group 2, microhybrid composite (Zmack-Comp), and Group 3, nanohybrid composite (Zr-Hybrid). Polymerization shrinkage test was performed using buoyancy and optical methods. For buoyancy method, samples were weighed in air and water to calculate the shrinkage value, whereas, for optical method, images of nonpolymerized samples were captured under a digital microscope and recaptured again after light-cured to calculate the percentage of shrinkage. Degree of conversion was tested using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy spectrometer.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance complemented by post hoc Dunnett's T3 test for polymerization shrinkage and Tukey's honestly significant difference test for degree of conversion. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Group 3 demonstrated similar polymerization shrinkage with Group 1, but lower shrinkage (p < 0.05) than Group 2 based on buoyancy method. However, optical method (p < 0.05) showed that Group 3 had the lowest shrinkage, followed by Group 1 and lastly Group 2. Besides, Group 3 showed a significantly higher degree of conversion (p < 0.05) than Group 1 and comparable conversion value with Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia-reinforced rice husk nanohybrid composite showed excellent shrinkage and conversion values, hence can be considered as an alternative to commercially available composite resins.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HVGICs evaluated were Zirconomer [ZR] (Shofu), Equia Forte [EQ] (GC) and Riva [RV] (SDI). Sixty specimens (12mm x 2mm x 2mm) of each material were fabricated using customized Teflon molds. After initial set, the specimens were removed from their molds, finished, measured and randomly divided into 3 groups of 20. Half the specimens in each group were left uncoated while the remaining half was covered with the respective manufacturers' resin coating. The specimens were subsequently conditioned in distilled water, artificial saliva or citric acid at 37°C for 7 days. The uncoated and coated specimens (n=10) were then subjected to dynamic mechanical testing in flexure mode at 37°C with a frequency of 0.1 to 10Hz. Storage modulus, loss modulus and loss tangent data were subjected to normality testing and statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Ttest at significance level p<0.05.
RESULTS: Mean storage modulus ranged from 1.39 ± 0.36 to 10.80 ± 0.86 GPa while mean loss modulus varied from 0.13 ± 0.03 to 0.70 ± 0.14 GPa after conditioning in the different mediums. Values for loss tangent ranged from 39.4 ± 7.75 to 213.2 ± 20.11 (x10 -3 ). Significant differences in visco-elastic properties were observed between mediums and materials. When conditioned in distilled water and artificial saliva,storage modulus was significantly improved when ZR, EQ and RV were uncoated. Significantly higher values were, however, observed with resin coating when the materials were exposed to citric acid.
CONCLUSION: The visco-elastic properties of HVGICs were influenced by both resin coating and chemical environment.
METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.
SIGNIFICANCE: This chewing simulation test showed that Tetric EvoCeram composites exhibited a rougher surface when opposing lithium disilicate ceramic compared to opposing zirconia ceramic.