Abstract
ObjectiveDentists are facing a myriad of new CAD/CAM product for dental filling therapies. Are the new materials any worthwhile using? Are they succeeding the standard filling materials? Here we compare for the first time the new resin-composite blocks (RCBs) with conventional materials (Filtek Z250 and Tetric EvoCeram). MethodsThe material were tested for residual monomer elution by HPLC, thermogravimetric analysis (TG) was used to determine the percentage of fillers by weight, hardness was evaluated by Vickers method, morphology of fillers and distribution in the matrix were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), elemental analysis for elemental determination of the filler particles was performed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) cytotoxicity using human gingival fibroblasts and an epithelial cell line. ResultsThe RBC outperformed conventional composite regarding mechanical characteristics (hardness) and monomer eluation, but showed some worrisome results regarding cytotoxicity. SignificanceThe cost benefit is not in favour of RBCs in comparison to conventional composites, as the cytotoxicity was found higher for RBCs.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
