Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses.
Por:
Valencia Blanco OJ, Fernández-Hernández S, de Llanos-Lanchares H, Punset M, Delgado García-Menocal JA, Gil Mur J and Brizuela Velasco A
Publicada:
18 sep 2025
Ahead of Print:
18 sep 2025
Resumen:
In this experimental in vitro study, both the physicochemical and mechanical properties of two self-curing dental composites were compared: Structur 3 (based on Bis-GMA) and Visco III (based on Bis-EMA), which are used for the direct fabrication of temporary dental prostheses. The properties evaluated included flexural strength, toughness, hydrophilicity (measured using the contact angle), density, microhardness, water absorption, and wear and scratch resistance. In terms of flexural strength, Structur 3 exhibited a higher value (127 ± 16 MPa) than Visco III (103 ± 25 MPa). In addition, the dental composite based on Bis-GMA showed a higher toughness (36.52 ± 9.20 mJ) compared to 16.55 ± 7.55 mJ for the dental composite based on Bis-EMA) and a greater displacement to fracture (2.50 ± 0.38 mm compared to 1.72 ± 0.38 mm). However, Visco III showed a higher microhardness (17.045 ± 0.93 HV0.5) compared to Structur 3 (8.10 ± 0.76 HV0.5) and a lower water absorption (11.2 ± 0.4 µg/mm(3) compared to Structur 3). In wear tests, Structur 3 showed greater wear (0.047 ± 0.021 mm(2) wear channel area) compared to Visco III (0.031 ± 0.013 mm(2)). Density analysis showed that Visco III is denser (1.5917 ± 0.006 g/cm(3)) than Structur 3 (1.324 ± 0.005 g/cm(3)). Fractography analysis showed that both dental composites exhibited brittle fractures. Contact angle tests revealed a similar hydrophilicity of both dental composites with values below 90°. These differences in properties may be influenced by the filler composition of the two dental composites, as Visco III contains macro-fillers with elements such as aluminum and barium, which increase radiopacity. The conclusion is that Visco III is preferable in terms of durability and resistance, while Structur 3 is more suitable for applications that require flexibility, such as in provisional prostheses with pontics or in situations that require high esthetic quality.
Filiaciones:
Valencia Blanco OJ:
Faculty of Health Sciences, European University Miguel de Cervantes, C/Padre Julio Chevalier 2, 47012 Valladolid, Spain
Fernández-Hernández S:
DENS ia Res Grp, Faculty of Health Sciences, European University Miguel de Cervantes, C/Padre Julio Chevalier 2, 47012 Valladolid, Spain
de Llanos-Lanchares H:
Department of Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dentistry, University of Oviedo, C/. Catedratico Serrano s/n., 33006 Oviedo, Spain
Punset M:
Biomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group (BBT), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Av. Eduard Maristany, 10-14, 08019 Barcelona, Spain
Delgado García-Menocal JA:
Bioengineering Institute of Technology, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, Sant Cugat del Vallés, 08195 Barcelona, Spain
Gil Mur J:
Bioinspired Oral Biomaterials and Interfaces, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Av. Eduard Maristany 16, 08019 Barcelona, Spain
Brizuela Velasco A:
DENS ia Res Grp, Faculty of Health Sciences, European University Miguel de Cervantes, C/Padre Julio Chevalier 2, 47012 Valladolid, Spain
Open Access
|