RESUMO
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of sterilization methods on conventional and bulk-fill resin composites' (BFRCs) surface properties in an attempt to preview bias in laboratory bacterial adhesion tests. Two regular viscosity conventional resin composites [Filtek Z350 XT™ (Z350) and IPS Empress Direct™ (ED)] and two regular viscosity BFRCs [Filtek Bulk Fill™ (FILT) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill IVA™ (TBF)] were used. The materials were characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), surface roughness (SR), and wettability (W) after sterilization with hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP) and steam sterilization (SS). Nonsterilized samples served as a control group (n = 5). Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05). For SR, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > .05). SS method decreased the contact angle for FILT and Z350 (p < .01). The SS promoted more exposition of filler particles, while the HPGP method did not alter the tested materials' morphology. Therefore, sterilization methods affected the resin composites tested selectively. HPGP seems to be the most recommended method to sterilize the tested resin composites before laboratory bacterial adhesion tests.
Assuntos
Aderência Bacteriana , Laboratórios , Resinas Compostas , Teste de Materiais , Esterilização , Propriedades de SuperfícieRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate bond strength (BS), shrinkage stress (SS), flexural strength (FS), and elastic modulus (E) of three flowable bulk fill in comparison with conventional composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow, Surefil SDR, X-tra Base) and three conventional composites (Filtek Z250 XT, Grandioso, Dentsply TPH3) were used. For BS, conical cavities (n = 10) were prepared in bovine dentine and restored with materials and were analyzed through push-out test in a universal testing machine (UTM). For FS/EM, 60 (n = 10) bar specimens (7 mm × 2 mm × 1 mm) were prepared and evaluated with a UTM. SS was measured in UTM coupled to an extensometer (n = 5). The data were statistically evaluated using one-way ANOVA/Tukey tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Conventional composites showed higher E when compared to bulk-fill composites. Regarding FS, they showed similar results, except for (XBF) Xtra Bulk Fill that was inferior. SS and BS of bulk-fill composites were significantly lower and higher than conventional composites, respectively, except for XBF, which showed similar BS to conventional ones. CONCLUSIONS: Flowable bulk-fill composites, except XBF, showed higher BS, lower SS, similar FS, and lower E when compared to conventional ones.