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/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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioengineering
Published
2025-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090996
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.68
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses

Saray Férnandez-Hernández, Miquel Punset, Aritza Brizuela‐Velasco, Javier Gil et al.
1 citations
Bioengineering
Dental materials and restorations
1.68
article

Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses

Saray Férnandez-Hernández, Miquel Punset, Aritza Brizuela‐Velasco, Javier Gil, José Ángel Delgado García‐Menocal, Héctor De Llanos-Lanchares, Oscar Javier Valencia Blanco
article en
1 citations

Abstract

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.

BioengineeringVol. 12(9)
Universidad de Oviedo (ES), Universidad Europea Miguel de Cervantes (ES), Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (ES), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Dental materials and restorations
1.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.