ArticleRevista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
Microhardness and flexural strenght of resins for the posterior sector:
Article in Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Contemporary resin composites have improved mechanical properties, such as microhardness and flexural strength, to better withstand masticatory loads. Nevertheless, fracture and wear remain common causes of failure in posterior restorations. Objective: To compare the surface microhardness and flexural strength of Filtek™ Z350 XT (3M ESPE), Estelite Posterior (Tokuyama), Beautifil II (Shofu), and Opallis (FGM). Materials and Methods: In vitro study with four resin composites (n = 10 per group). Disc-shaped specimens (5 mm × 2 mm) were used to evaluate Vickers microhardness (VHN), and bar-shaped specimens (25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) to perform a three-point bending test using a universal testing machine. Results: For flexural strength, Estelite Posterior showed the highest mean (136.59 ± 9.13 MPa). For surface microhardness, Filtek Z350 XT yielded the highest value (67.99 ± 2.60 VHN). Significant differences were found among groups (p < 0.001), except between Z350 XT and Estelite Posterior for microhardness (p = 0.101) and flexural strength (p = 0.252). Conclusion: Filtek Z350 XT and Estelite Posterior exhibited higher surface microhardness and flexural strength compared with Beautifil II and Opallis. Clinical Relevance: These results support more informed selection of posterior restorative materials, considering performance and longevity in the oral environment prior to clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.