International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

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: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Khurshid Z, Zafar M, et al. Advances in Nanotechnology for Restorative Dentistry. J Materials 2015;8(12):717–731.
  8. Ivoclar Vivadent. Scientific Documents: Cention N. Page No. 7 of 58.
  9. Mann JS, Sharma S, et al. Review Article Cention N: A Review. Int J Curr Res 2018 May;10(5):69111–69112.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, et al. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Sep;82(3):272–276.
  13. 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
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.