IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Chewing Tobacco on Compressive Strength of Resin Restoratives
Objectives: The objective was to determine the effects of a chewing tobacco extract on the
compressive strength of ten esthetic restorative materials. Methods: Materials included resin
composites (Z250, Z100, A110, TPH, Point 4, and Esthet-X), compomers (Dyract AP and
Compoglass F), and glass ionomers (Fuji II LC and Fuji IX). The chewing tobacco extract was
made from Redman Chewing Tobacco. Twenty disc-shaped samples of each material were made
according to manufacturer's directions. Ten samples of each material were stored in a solution of
concentrated tobacco extract (chewing tobacco in phosphate buffered saline) and 10 were stored
in artificial saliva (phosphate buffered saline or PBS). At 1 week, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks after
storage, the compressive strength of each sample was tested using a universal testing machine.
Three-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis (p=0.05). Results: No
statistically significant change in strength was found between tobacco extract and PBS storage
solutions. Significant differences in strength were found between some materials with the two
glass ionomers significantly lower than other materials. After storage of the resins for12 weeks
in PBS, the mean compressive strengths, in MPa (letters following strength values denote groups
with no significant differences) were Z250, 329 (A); TPH, 316 (AB); EX, 315 (ABC); Z100, 300
(ABC); P4, 292 (ABC); A110, 269 (BC); CG, 265 (BC); DAP, 259 (C); FII, 167 (D); and FIX,
138 (D). After 12 weeks storage in chewing tobacco extract, mean strength values, in MPa, were
A110, 321 (A); P4, 319 (A); TPH, 304 (AB); Z250, 301 (AB); Z100, 299 (AB); EX, 293 (AB);
CG, 260 (AB); DAP, 250 (B); FII, 179 (C); and FIX, 122 (C). Conclusions: Storage of these
resin restorative materials in chewing tobacco extract for up to 12 weeks had no statistically
significant effect on compressive strength.