A Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Four Different Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Nahid Iftikhar; Devashish; Natasha Ghambir; Rashi-Singh

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

Online First

A Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Four Different Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Nahid Iftikhar, Devashish, Natasha Ghambir, Rashi-Singh

Keywords : Compressive strength, Diametral tensile strength, Restorative materials

Citation Information : Iftikhar N, D, Ghambir N, R. A Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Four Different Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (1):47-49.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2019

ARTICLE
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the mechanical properties (compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS)) of four different restorative materials: conventional glass ionomer (Fuji IX), ClearFil AP-X, Filtex Z350-XT, and Cention N. Materials and methods: Specimens (n = 80) were prepared from Fuji IX, ClearFil AP-X, Filtex Z350-XT, and Cention N for testing compressive strength and DTS. Statistical analysis: Results obtained were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey\'s post hoc test at significance (p < 0.001). Results: There were significant differences among restorative materials tested. ClearFil AP-X exhibits the highest mechanical properties (CS and DTS) and least values were obtained by the Fuji IX. Conclusion: Strength is one of the most important criteria for the selection of a restorative material. Stronger materials better resist deformation and fracture, presenting more equitable stress distribution, greater probability, and greater stability of clinical success.

PDF Share

Abraham D, Thomas AM, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chitosanmodified glass ionomer cement. An in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014 Jan;7(1):6–10.
Ayad NM, Elnogoly SA, et al. An in vitro study of the physic-mechanical properties of a new esthetic restorative vs dental amalgam. Rev Clin Pesq Odonttol 2008;4(3):137–144.
Chalissery VP, Marwah N, et al. Study of the Mechanical Properties of the Novel Zirconia – reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016 May;17(5):394–398.
Prosser HJ, Powis DR, et al. Characterization of glass-ionomer cements. 7. The physical properties of current materials. J Dent 1984 Sep;12(3):231–240.
Gu YW, Yap AU, et al. Effects of incorporation of HA/ZrO(2) into glass ionomer cement (GIC). Biomaterials 2005 Mar;26(7):713–720.
Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, et al. Clinical efficacy of composite vs ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29(12):1209–1218.
Khurshid Z, Zafar M, et al. Advances in Nanotechnology for Restorative Dentistry. J Materials 2015;8(12):717–731.
Ivoclar Vivadent. Scientific Documents: Cention N. Page No. 7 of 58.
Mann JS, Sharma S, et al. Review Article Cention N: A Review. Int J Curr Res 2018 May;10(5):69111–69112.
Dogan MS, Demirci F, et al. Evaluation of stress distribution of a new restorative material and composite resin: a finite-element analysis study. J Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 2017;31(6):1216–1220.
Kumar G, Shivrayan A. Comparative study of mechanical properties of direct core build-up materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2015 Jan– Mar;6(1):16–20.
Cho GC, Kaneko LM, et al. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Sep;82(3):272–276.
Mallmann A, Ataide JC, et al. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions. Braz Oral Res 2007 Jul–Sep;21(3):204–208.

PDF Share