Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The Chinese Journal of Dental Research
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
Official Site
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: CJDR

 

The Chinese Journal of Dental Research

Edited by Xu Chen MA

Official journal of the Chinese Stomatological Association

ISSN (print) 1462-6446 • ISSN (online) 1867-5646

Publication:

Summer 2013
Volume 16 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

Relation between Handling Characteristics and Application Time of Four Photo-polymerized Resin Composites

Roulet, Jean-Francois / Geraldeli, Saulo / Sensi, Luis / Özcan, Mutlu

Pages: 55-61

Objective: To investigate the relation between handling characteristics and application time of four composite materials with subjectively different viscosities. Methods: Eight experienced faculty members placed one Class II and one Class IV restoration in a random sequence into pre-prepared plastic teeth mounted on a typodont model, each using 4 types of composites (Herculite Précis (M1), Kerr; Tertic N-Ceram (M2), Ivoclar Vivadent; Filtek Z350 (M3), 3M-ESPE; Charisma Opal (M4), HareausKulzer), resulting in a total of 64 restorations. The application process was filmed with a high definition video camera. Two evaluators watched the recordings in a random sequence as well, timed the composite application and wrote down their observations, which were dichotimised into positive and negative ones. Application times were analysed with a two-way Kruskal Wallis test (time x dentist) and the observation data were analysed with a chi-square test (P < 0.05). Results: Materials did not differ in their application time (P > 0.05). The mean application time was 12 ¼ minutes for the Class II and 9 ¾ minutes for Class IV restorations. However, there were statistically significant differences between the dentists in terms of application time. The observation data showed no significant difference between Class II and Class IV restorations but there were significant material differences (P < 0.05). M2 yielded 6% negative observations, while the other materials were between 35% and 38%. Conclusion: There was no association between the handling characteristics of the tested composite resins and the speed of application. However, one of the tested materials (M2) showed significantly less problems in the application process.

Keywords: Composite direct application, handling, observation study, in vitro, viscosity

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog