Abstract:

Introduction and Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the resistance of fiber-fortified composite resins to the dentine. Method and Requirements: 30 anonymous human molar females have been used. The spinal and lingual surfaces of the teeth are swallowed under water cooling to get the standard smoar layer with 120- and 600- grid silicone carbide papers to get a proper dentin surface. Then, the phosphoric acid and the adhesive system were applied. Examples are randomly divided into 5 groups (n=12) according to the type of used fiber and composite resin. Group FZ+PF: microhybrid composite resin+polyethylene fiber; Group FZ: microhybrid composite; Group EP: short fiber enhanced composite; Group SR+PF: liquid bulk fill composite+polyethylene fiber; Group SR: liquid bulk fill composite. Composite resins are connected using silicone patterns in a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 4 mm. Examples were kept in distilled water for 24 hours and then tested with a universal test device at 1mm/min piston head speed. The failure analysis of broken surfaces was studied with a stereomicroscope in 15x enlargement. The data was evaluated using one-way variance analysis and Tukey test (p<0,05). STATISTICALLY: The group SR (crowded bulk fill composite) has statistically demonstrated a higher cutting bond resistance compared to the group SR+PF (crowded bulk fill composite+polyethylene fiber) (p<0,05). There is no statistical difference between the other groups in terms of compulsory connectivity (p>0,05). The group FZ (microhybrite composite), the group EP (short fiber-fortified composite) and the group SR (blow bulk fill composite) have a combination type failure; the group FZ+PF (microhybrite composite+polyethylene fiber) and the group SR+PF (blow bulk fill composite+polyethylene fiber) have a combination type failure. ACCESSION AND RESULTATURE: Liquid bulk fill composite resin scratch binding resistance values are higher compared to liquid bulk fill composites reinforced by polyethylene fiber.

Keywords: