Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Dental Restorative Material

Methods:

Four groups (n=10 each) of restorative materials were tested. Samples were prepared according to DIN 53454 (ISO 9917 2001) and ISO Standard 4049 for compressive testing (CS), flexural strength (FS) and diametric tensile strength (DTS): a 4 x 8-mm² mold for CS; a 6 x 3.5-mm² mold for diametric tensile strength (DTS); a 2 x 2 x 2-mm³mold for FS. The samples in Groups 1-3 were cured with a halogen light from top and bottom surfaces for 40 seconds. Group 4 was self-polymerized according to manufacturer’s directions. Samples were then stored in distilled water for 24 hours to ensure polymerization of the material. All tests were performed using a universal testing machine (UTM) with 1K load cell (Instron 5566A, Norwood, MA). For CS and DTS testing, a 4 mm/min cross head speed were used, while FS testing used a three-point bending fixture attach on a UTM machine at a 0.5 mm/min cross head. The distance between the two supports was set at 20 mm. The radius of each support was 1 mm. Differences among groups was tested with one way ANOVA and post hoc tests using Tukey’s HSD. Statistical significance was predetermined at level p<0.05.

Results:

Mean values of 4 measurements of strength in four restorative materials

Means with the same superscript letter are not statistically different from one another.

Conclusion:   Bioactive restorative group 2 demonstrates mechanical properties similar to a composite resin restorative material group 1. This study suggests that this new bioactive material has promising attributes as a dental restorative material comparable to resin composites and superior to RMGIs and GIs.