Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/95931
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCarneiro, Elsa Reis-
dc.contributor.authorCoelho, Ana Sofia-
dc.contributor.authorAmaro, Inês-
dc.contributor.authorPaula, Anabela Baptista-
dc.contributor.authorMarto, Carlos Miguel-
dc.contributor.authorSaraiva, José-
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, Manuel Marques-
dc.contributor.authorVilhena, Luis-
dc.contributor.authorRamalho, Amílcar-
dc.contributor.authorCarrilho, Eunice-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-21T14:14:11Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-21T14:14:11Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.issn2076-3417pt
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/95931-
dc.description.abstractDespite developments and advances in dental materials which allow for greater restorative performance, there are still challenges and questions regarding the formulation of new compositions and chemical reactions of materials used in restorative dentistry. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the mechanical and tribological characteristics of a bioactive resin, a composite resin, and a glass ionomer. Twenty specimens of each material were divided into two groups: one control group (n = 10), not subjected to thermocycling, and one test group (n = 10) submitted to thermocycling. The Vickers microhardness test was carried out and surface roughness was evaluated. The tribological sliding indentation test was chosen. The bioactive resin had the lowest hardness, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin also showed greater resistance to fracture. For the tribological test, the wear rate was lower for the bioactive resin, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin presented a smooth surface without visible cracks, while the other materials presented a brittle peeling of great portions of material. Thus, the bioactive resin performs better in relation to fracture toughness, wear rate and impact absorption than the composite resin and much better than the glass ionomer. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.pt
dc.language.isoengpt
dc.publisherMDPIpt
dc.rightsopenAccesspt
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt
dc.subjectBioactive resinpt
dc.subjectFriction behaviorpt
dc.subjectMechanical testspt
dc.subjectRestorative dentistrypt
dc.subjectThermocyclingpt
dc.subjectWear mechanismspt
dc.titleMechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Bioactive Composite Resinpt
dc.typearticle-
degois.publication.firstPage8256pt
degois.publication.issue17pt
degois.publication.titleApplied Sciencespt
dc.peerreviewedyespt
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/app11178256pt
degois.publication.volume11pt
dc.date.embargo2021-01-01*
uc.date.periodoEmbargo0pt
item.fulltextCom Texto completo-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextopen-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-5759-5557-
Appears in Collections:I&D CEMMPRE - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
FMUC Medicina - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
applsci-11-08256.pdf7.63 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

20
checked on Dec 24, 2021

Download(s)

11
checked on Dec 24, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons