IN VITRO COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GOMPOSITES’ COMPRESSIVE RESISTANCE FOR POSTERIOR SECTOR ACCORDING TO THEIR THICKNESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15332/us.v9i2.1155Keywords:
Dental materials, Composite resins, Compression strengthAbstract
Objective: To compare the In vitro behavior of packable composites Filtek P60 (3M ESPE), Surefil (Dentsply), Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), when subjected to compressive strength.
Methods: An experimental In vitro study was done in samples of 4 mm in diameter coupons ranging from 1 mm to 5 mm thick, for a total of 25 specimens for each evaluated packable resin. The sample size was 75 coupons. These were subjected to a compression test through a Shimadzu Autograph AG-i 250 universal testing machine.
Results: Obtained average compression strength values were: 228,9 ± 78,7 MPa, 210,6 ± 74,9 MPa and 190,7± 71,7 MPa for composites Filtefi P60 (3M ESPE), Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) and SureFil (Dentsply) respectively, without significant statistic differences between them. On the other hand, it was observed that, according to the resin thickness, the maximum resistance measured was 294,5 ± 71,7 MPa for the 1 mm high sample and the lowest was for 4 mm one with an average of 153,8 ± 36,6 MPa.
Conclusions: In the experimental tests the composite with the highest compression strength was Filtek P60 (3M ESPE) followed by Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) and at last SureFil (Dentsply), although no significant sadistic differences were evident. The sample with the highest compression strength, according to the height, was the 1 mm one, followed by the 3, 2, 5, and 4 mm ones.
Downloads
References
Naranjo M, Ortiz P, Díaz M, Gómez M, Patiño MC. Resistencia a la fractura de dientes intactos y restaurados con resina sometidos a carga constante. Revista CES Odontología 2007; 20: 31 – 38
Anusavice KJ. Phillips. Ciencia de los Materiales Dentales. 11 ed. Elsevier Science; 2008. p. 339 -441
Aghazadeh Mohandesi J, Rafiee MA, Barzegaran V, Shafiei F. Compressive fatigue behavior of dental restorative composites. Dent Mater 2007; 26: 827 – 837
Díaz JG, Gil JJ, Reyes LM, Bonilla A, Franco Y, Lara S, Peña D. Mechanical properties comparison for dental materials (ceromers and resins). VI COMEC Villa Clara, CUBA. Nov 2010
ANSI/ADA Specification No. 27. Resin-based composites J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 510 - 512
Watanabe H, Khera SC, Vargas MA, Qian F. Fracture toughness comparison of six resin composites. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 418 – 425
Abe Y, Braem MJA, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Takeuchi M, Van Meerbeek B. Fatigue behavior of packable composites. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 3405 - 3409
Norma Técnica Colombiana NTC 1810 - 2004. Materiales de Obturación, Restauración y Cementación con Base en Polímeros. ICONTEC 2009
Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes NB. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382 – 1390
Kim JK, Yi ST, Kim JJ. Effect of specimen sizes on flexural compressive strength of concrete. ACI Structural Journal 2001; 98: 416 – 424
French CW. Mokhtarzadeh A. High strength concrete: effects of material, curing and test procedures on short-term compressive strength. PCI Journal 1993; 38: 76 - 87
Vandegrift D, Schindler AK. The Effect of Test Cylinder Size on the Compressive Strength of Sulfur Capped Concrete Specimens. Highway Research Center and Department of Civil Engineering at Auburn University [en línea] 2006. URL disponible en: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/files/file806.pdf
Van Steenberghe D, De Vries IH. The development of a maximal clenching force between two antagonistic teeth. J Periodontal Res 1978; 13: 91 – 97
Waltimo A, Konotten M. A novel bite force recorder and maximal isometric bite force values for healthy young adults. Scand J Dent Res 1993: 101 – 171
Christensen LV, McKay DC. Kinematic and kinetic observations on ballistic depression and elevation of the human mandible. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27: 494 – 507
Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, Brehnan K, Walsh EK, Sinkewiz SL, Ginsberg SB. Occlusal forces during chewing – influences of biting strength and food consistency. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46: 561 – 567
Hagberg C. The amplitud distribution of electromyographic activity of masticatory muscles during unilateral chewing. J Oral Rehabil 1986; 13: 567 – 574
Nishigawa K, Bando E, Nakano M. Quantitative study of bite force during sleep-associated bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28: 485 – 491
