IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Two Amalgam Alternative Restorative Materials
Objectives: This study focuses on comparing dentin shear bond strength(SBS) and compressive strength(CS) of two amalgam alternative self-curing restorative materials, commercially available Cention N (Group 1) (Ivoclar Vivadent) to SDI Experimental Material (Group 2) (SDI Limited).
Methods: For CS testing, stainless steel molds were used to prepare each specimen (4mm diameter x 6mm) (n=12 per group). Materials were mixed according to manufacturers’ instructions. Specimens were stored in a high-humidity environment at 37°C. After one hour, the specimens were removed, placed in deionized water, and returned to the 37°C oven for 23 hours. At 24 hours, specimens were tested with a Universal Testing machine (Instron® 5566A Norwood, MA) with a 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed. Same procedure was repeated as above with samples being tested after being stored in high humidity environment for 7 days. For SBS testing, 10 extracted human teeth (n=10) were embedded in acrylic with the dentinal surface exposed. 3.5mm diameter dentinal surface was used for specimen bonding. Materials were mixed according to manufacturers’ instructions and applied without preconditioning/etching or bonding agent. Specimens were stored in a high-humidity environment at 37°C. After one hour, specimens were immersed in deionized water and returned to the 37°C for 23 hours. At 24 hours, specimens were tested with a universal testing machine with 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed.
Results: For CS, Group 1 did not show a statistically significant difference to Group 2 (p=0.269 at 24hrs and p=0.217 at 7 days). For SBS at 24 hours, Group 1 showed a statistically significant difference to Group 2 (p=0.001), with Group 2 having a higher mean.
Conclusions: Group 1 has a comparable CS compared at 24 hours and 7 days to Group 2. However, Group 2 has higher SBS when compared to Group 1. Group 2 showed similar results in CS and higher SBS and therefore, it may be acceptable as compared to a commercially available product as an amalgam alternative.
Methods: For CS testing, stainless steel molds were used to prepare each specimen (4mm diameter x 6mm) (n=12 per group). Materials were mixed according to manufacturers’ instructions. Specimens were stored in a high-humidity environment at 37°C. After one hour, the specimens were removed, placed in deionized water, and returned to the 37°C oven for 23 hours. At 24 hours, specimens were tested with a Universal Testing machine (Instron® 5566A Norwood, MA) with a 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed. Same procedure was repeated as above with samples being tested after being stored in high humidity environment for 7 days. For SBS testing, 10 extracted human teeth (n=10) were embedded in acrylic with the dentinal surface exposed. 3.5mm diameter dentinal surface was used for specimen bonding. Materials were mixed according to manufacturers’ instructions and applied without preconditioning/etching or bonding agent. Specimens were stored in a high-humidity environment at 37°C. After one hour, specimens were immersed in deionized water and returned to the 37°C for 23 hours. At 24 hours, specimens were tested with a universal testing machine with 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed.
Results: For CS, Group 1 did not show a statistically significant difference to Group 2 (p=0.269 at 24hrs and p=0.217 at 7 days). For SBS at 24 hours, Group 1 showed a statistically significant difference to Group 2 (p=0.001), with Group 2 having a higher mean.
Conclusions: Group 1 has a comparable CS compared at 24 hours and 7 days to Group 2. However, Group 2 has higher SBS when compared to Group 1. Group 2 showed similar results in CS and higher SBS and therefore, it may be acceptable as compared to a commercially available product as an amalgam alternative.
IMAGES
2855182_File000000.jpg
2855182_File000000.jpg