IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Physical Properties of a New Composite CAD/CAD Block Material
Objectives: A new CAD/CAM block material has been developed by JingCi Medical Device Co, Ltd. The goal of this project was to characterize the physical properties of this new material and compare this material with existing materials in the marketplace.
Methods: Materials for testing were provided by or purchased directly from the manufacturer. Materials tested and compared were: Hebi blocks (H)(JingCi Medical Device Co, Beijing, China) Ceramage® (CM)(Shofu Dental Corp., San Marcos, CA) a zirconium silicate micro ceramic; CEREC Blocs C (CBC)(Dentsply Sirona, York, PA,) a feldspathic ceramic block; and Lava Ultimate (LU)(3M, Minneapolis, MN) a resin nano ceramic. Coupons were cut from the CBC and LU materials. The CM material was packed into a stainless steel mold and cured for 2 minutes in a Solidilite light-curing unit. Bovine enamel slabs were also compared for wear and hardness.
For wear resistance, a block of material in excess of 6x6x4mm thick was used in a UMT-2 (Bruker, San Jose CA) with reciprocating sliding wear assessed using a stainless steel hemisphere. Both abrasion and attrition were measured. To compare flexural strength, 2x2x25mm test bars were used on an ElectroPuls E-3000 (Instron, Norwood, MA) with a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min. For hardness testing, a Wilson Microhardness tester (Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL) was used after polishing through 4000 grit alumina. Density was measured with a manual pycnometer. Data were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey (α=0.05).
Results: Results are shown in the table below. The H and the CB materials both demonstrated excellent abrasion and attrition resistance. Flexural strength of the H material was equal to CM but both were significantly lower than LU. However, H had significantly higher modulus than the other two materials tested. Hardness of the CB and Enamel were significantly higher than the other materials. Density of CM was significantly higher than the others.
Conclusions: The new Hebi material displayed favorable physical/mechanical properties for use clinically.
Methods: Materials for testing were provided by or purchased directly from the manufacturer. Materials tested and compared were: Hebi blocks (H)(JingCi Medical Device Co, Beijing, China) Ceramage® (CM)(Shofu Dental Corp., San Marcos, CA) a zirconium silicate micro ceramic; CEREC Blocs C (CBC)(Dentsply Sirona, York, PA,) a feldspathic ceramic block; and Lava Ultimate (LU)(3M, Minneapolis, MN) a resin nano ceramic. Coupons were cut from the CBC and LU materials. The CM material was packed into a stainless steel mold and cured for 2 minutes in a Solidilite light-curing unit. Bovine enamel slabs were also compared for wear and hardness.
For wear resistance, a block of material in excess of 6x6x4mm thick was used in a UMT-2 (Bruker, San Jose CA) with reciprocating sliding wear assessed using a stainless steel hemisphere. Both abrasion and attrition were measured. To compare flexural strength, 2x2x25mm test bars were used on an ElectroPuls E-3000 (Instron, Norwood, MA) with a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min. For hardness testing, a Wilson Microhardness tester (Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL) was used after polishing through 4000 grit alumina. Density was measured with a manual pycnometer. Data were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey (α=0.05).
Results: Results are shown in the table below. The H and the CB materials both demonstrated excellent abrasion and attrition resistance. Flexural strength of the H material was equal to CM but both were significantly lower than LU. However, H had significantly higher modulus than the other two materials tested. Hardness of the CB and Enamel were significantly higher than the other materials. Density of CM was significantly higher than the others.
Conclusions: The new Hebi material displayed favorable physical/mechanical properties for use clinically.