International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation and Comparison of Physical Properties of Cention N with Other Restorative Materials in Artificial Saliva: An In Vitro Study

Priti S Adsul, Preeti Dhawan, Avantika Tuli, Nitin Khanduri, Aditi Singh

Keywords : Artificial saliva, Cention N, Conventional glass-ionomer cement, Flexural strength, Microhardness, Zirconomer improved

Citation Information : Adsul PS, Dhawan P, Tuli A, Khanduri N, Singh A. Evaluation and Comparison of Physical Properties of Cention N with Other Restorative Materials in Artificial Saliva: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (3):350-355.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2383

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine and compare flexural strength and microhardness of Cention N with Glass ionomer cement (GIC) (GC Gold Label Type IX Extra) and Zirconomer improved at a distinctive time period in artificial saliva. Materials and methods: Cention N, GC Gold Label Type IX Extra, Zirconomer improved for the fabrication of samples. To determine the physical properties such as flexural strength and microhardness, test samples (n-30) of dimensions 12 mm (length)*4 mm (breadth)*2 mm (thickness) were made and divided into three groups. Every sample was dipped for 28 days in a plastic tube containing 5 mL of artificial saliva. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA with a post hoc test, intergroup and intragroup analyses were carried out. Results: In an intergroup analysis, flexural strength and microhardness of Cention N were substantially higher than Zirconomer improved and GIC (GC Gold Label Type IX Extra), respectively. In intragroup analysis found that there was a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in the level of flexural strength as well as microhardness after samples were immersed in artificial saliva of group A (Cention N), group B (GC Gold Label Type IX Extra), and group C (Zirconomer improved) from 1st day to 28th day in artificial saliva. Conclusion: It can be concluded that Cention N had the highest flexural strength and microhardness of the three materials tested. Zirconomer improved can be used as a basic filling material in various restorative procedures due to good comparable mechanical properties and is economical for patients.


PDF Share
  1. Nigam AG, Jaiswal J, Murthy R, et al. Estimation of fluoride release from various dental materials in different media—an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;2(1):1–8. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1033
  2. Didem A, Gozde Y, Nurhan O. Comparative mechanical properties of bulk–fill resins. Open J Compos Mater 2014;4(2):117–121. DOI:10.4236/ojcm.2014.42013
  3. Kavei D. The evolution of contemporary nano–filled composite materials for dentistry clinical applications. IJETAE 2015;8:214–219. Retrieved from http://www.semantic.org/
  4. Curtis AJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, et al. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resin based composite. J Dent 2007;36(3):186–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.015
  5. El Mallakh BF, Sarkar NK. Fluoride release from glass ionomer cement in de-ionized water and artificial saliva. Dent Mater 1990;6(2):118–122. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(05)80041-7
  6. Topbasi B, Öveçoglu ML, Türkmen C. Flexural strength and fracture surface characterization of glass-ionomer cements stored in water. Oral Health Dent Manag 2003;2:18–26. Retrieved from http://www.semantic.org/
  7. Ivoclar Vivadent. Scientific Documents: Cention N. p. 7–58.
  8. SHOFU DENTAL GmbH Am Brüll 17, 40878 Ratingen, Germany.
  9. Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, et al. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer - a stereomicroscopic study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(7):ZC65–ZC67. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13024.6225
  10. Volpato CM, Garbelotto LGAD, Fredel MC, et al. “Application of zirconia in dentistry: Biological, mechanical and optical considerations”. In: Sikalidis C. editor. Advances in ceramics–electric and magnetic ceramics, bioceramics, ceramics and environment. Rijeka: InTech (2011):397–404.
  11. Schenck L, Burtscher P, Vogel K, et al. Major breakthrough in the field of direct posterior composite resins - thanks to the combined use of Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill and Bluephase Style. Special Feature DZW. 2011;38/11 3–15.
  12. ANSI/ADA Specification No. 66 for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement (1987).
  13. Chung SM, Yap AU, Chandra SP, et al. Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004;71(2): 278–283. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30103
  14. Sadananda V, Shetty C, Hegde NM, et al. Alkasite restorative material: flexural and compressive strength evaluation. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2018;9(5):2179. Retrieved from http://journalcra.com
  15. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N with conventionally used restorative materials—an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;8(4):120–124. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219
  16. Mann JS, Sharma S, Maurya S, et al. Review article Cention N: a review. Int J Curr Res 2018;10(5):69111–69112. Retrieved from http://journalcra.com
  17. Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, et al. Study of the mechanical properties of the novel Zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):394–398. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1861
  18. Vemagiri C, Uloopi KS, Chandrappa V, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage, compressive strength, flexural strength and fluoride release of Zirconomer and ketac silver: an in vitro study. J of Biomed and Pharm Res 2020;9(4). DOI: 10.32553/jbpr.v9i4.770
  19. Asafarlal S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage, surface roughness and hardness of three glass ionomer cements – Zirconomer, Fujii IX Extra GC and Ketac Molar: an in vitro study. J Dent 2017;7:427. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000427
  20. Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(2):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
  21. Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C, et al. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, Cention N, Nanohybrid composite resin and Silver amalgam) – an in vitro study. Int J Approx Reason 2018;6:826–832. DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/6737
  22. Prabhakar AR, Paul MJ, Basappa N. Comparative evaluation of the remineralizing effects and surface micro hardness of glass ionomer cements containing bioactiv (S53P4): an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;3(2):69–77. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1057
  23. Ong J, Yap AU, Hong JY, et al. Viscoelastic properties of contemporary bulk-fill restoratives: a dynamic-mechanical analysis. Oper Dent 2018;43(3):307–314. DOI: 10.2341/16-365-L
  24. Calserv Repair, sales, calibration and maintenance of testing machines. www.service-testing.com Accessed 4th june 2020.
  25. Gan, Edward. Effects of Conventional and Two–Step Sintering on the Properties of Hydroxyapatite. 2015;10:131–140. Retrieved from http://www.reserchget.net/
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.