IADR Abstract Archives
A Comparative Analysis of Composite-based CAD/CAM Blocks
Objectives: To compare physical-mechanical properties of different composite-based CAD/CAM blocks.
Methods: One experimental (EXP, Prismatik) and five commercial materials: Lava Ultimate (LVU, 3M-ESPE), Cerasmart (CRS, GC), Vita Enamic (VTE, VITA), Shofu HC (SHF, Shofu), and Paradigm MZ100 (PMZ, 3M-ESPE) were tested for flexural strength (FS), water sorption (WS) and solubility (SL), diametral tensile strength (DTS), and compressive strength (CS). FS (n=8), WS and SL (n=3) were tested according to ISO-4049. DTS (n=5) was tested according to ANSI/ADA-Specification #27 and CS (n=8) was tested according to the ASTM-D695. A one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey tests was performed to observe statistical differences between mechanical properties of EXP and the commercial materials (α=0.05).
Results: As seen in table 1, EXP’s FS was statistically higher than VTE, SHF, and PMZ. EXP’s WS value was statistically lower than all of the commercial materials, except for VTE. All SL results were not statistically different except when comparing EXP to PMZ. All tested materials for DTS were not statistically different from each other except for EXP and CRS. For CS, all results were not statistically different except for EXP compared to VTE.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, data revealed a subtle difference in tested properties. EXP demonstrated lower WS effects while performing better in mechanical properties than other materials tested.
Methods: One experimental (EXP, Prismatik) and five commercial materials: Lava Ultimate (LVU, 3M-ESPE), Cerasmart (CRS, GC), Vita Enamic (VTE, VITA), Shofu HC (SHF, Shofu), and Paradigm MZ100 (PMZ, 3M-ESPE) were tested for flexural strength (FS), water sorption (WS) and solubility (SL), diametral tensile strength (DTS), and compressive strength (CS). FS (n=8), WS and SL (n=3) were tested according to ISO-4049. DTS (n=5) was tested according to ANSI/ADA-Specification #27 and CS (n=8) was tested according to the ASTM-D695. A one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey tests was performed to observe statistical differences between mechanical properties of EXP and the commercial materials (α=0.05).
Results: As seen in table 1, EXP’s FS was statistically higher than VTE, SHF, and PMZ. EXP’s WS value was statistically lower than all of the commercial materials, except for VTE. All SL results were not statistically different except when comparing EXP to PMZ. All tested materials for DTS were not statistically different from each other except for EXP and CRS. For CS, all results were not statistically different except for EXP compared to VTE.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, data revealed a subtle difference in tested properties. EXP demonstrated lower WS effects while performing better in mechanical properties than other materials tested.