Oscar Javier Valencia Blanco, Saray Fernández-Hernández, Hector de Llanos-Lanchares, Miquel Punset Fuste, José Angel Delgado García-Menocal, Javier Gil Mur, Aritza Brizuela Velasco
{"title":"两种用于直接临时修复体的自固化复合树脂的物理化学和力学特性。","authors":"Oscar Javier Valencia Blanco, Saray Fernández-Hernández, Hector de Llanos-Lanchares, Miquel Punset Fuste, José Angel Delgado García-Menocal, Javier Gil Mur, Aritza Brizuela Velasco","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12090996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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<sup>3</sup> compared to Structur 3). In wear tests, Structur 3 showed greater wear (0.047 ± 0.021 mm<sup>2</sup> wear channel area) compared to Visco III (0.031 ± 0.013 mm<sup>2</sup>). Density analysis showed that Visco III is denser (1.5917 ± 0.006 g/cm<sup>3</sup>) than Structur 3 (1.324 ± 0.005 g/cm<sup>3</sup>). 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses.\",\"authors\":\"Oscar Javier Valencia Blanco, Saray Fernández-Hernández, Hector de Llanos-Lanchares, Miquel Punset Fuste, José Angel Delgado García-Menocal, Javier Gil Mur, Aritza Brizuela Velasco\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering12090996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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<sup>3</sup> compared to Structur 3). In wear tests, Structur 3 showed greater wear (0.047 ± 0.021 mm<sup>2</sup> wear channel area) compared to Visco III (0.031 ± 0.013 mm<sup>2</sup>). Density analysis showed that Visco III is denser (1.5917 ± 0.006 g/cm<sup>3</sup>) than Structur 3 (1.324 ± 0.005 g/cm<sup>3</sup>). 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467920/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090996\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090996","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses.
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/mm3 compared to Structur 3). In wear tests, Structur 3 showed greater wear (0.047 ± 0.021 mm2 wear channel area) compared to Visco III (0.031 ± 0.013 mm2). Density analysis showed that Visco III is denser (1.5917 ± 0.006 g/cm3) than Structur 3 (1.324 ± 0.005 g/cm3). 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.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering