Cargando…

Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study

INTRODUCTION: Tooth coloured restorative materials are subjected to various physical, mechanical conditions in oral conditions. Many newer composites with improved physical and mechanical properties are introduced for clinical use. There are not many clinical studies on recent composites. The aim of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meenakumari, C., Bhat, K. Manohar, Bansal, Rahul, Singh, Nitika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962780
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_160_18
_version_ 1783332930275246080
author Meenakumari, C.
Bhat, K. Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
Singh, Nitika
author_facet Meenakumari, C.
Bhat, K. Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
Singh, Nitika
author_sort Meenakumari, C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Tooth coloured restorative materials are subjected to various physical, mechanical conditions in oral conditions. Many newer composites with improved physical and mechanical properties are introduced for clinical use. There are not many clinical studies on recent composites. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of five commercially available nano composite restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of five nano posterior composite SureFil SDR, ClearFil Majesty, Ever X, Tetric Evo Ceram bulk fill and Filtek Z350 were tested in the study. All samples were prepared According ISO 4049 and polymerized with a LED light for 40 seconds and subjected to mechanical tests for compressive strength, flexural strength, flexural modulous and nano hardness. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Results obtained were subjected to one way ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc test at significance (p <0.05). RESULTS: There was significant differences among composites restorative resins tested. CFM Nano hybrid composite exhibited highest hardness values. Flexural strength, flexural modulous and hardness properties of Ever X and Z350 were almost similar. Compressive strength value of Ever X was high compared with other four composites. SDR exhibited least values when compared with other composites. CONCLUSION: Differences in compressive strength, hardness, flexural strength and modulous is due to differences in percentage and type of filler particles in all composite resin material tested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6006874
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60068742018-06-29 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study Meenakumari, C. Bhat, K. Manohar Bansal, Rahul Singh, Nitika Contemp Clin Dent Original Article INTRODUCTION: Tooth coloured restorative materials are subjected to various physical, mechanical conditions in oral conditions. Many newer composites with improved physical and mechanical properties are introduced for clinical use. There are not many clinical studies on recent composites. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of five commercially available nano composite restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of five nano posterior composite SureFil SDR, ClearFil Majesty, Ever X, Tetric Evo Ceram bulk fill and Filtek Z350 were tested in the study. All samples were prepared According ISO 4049 and polymerized with a LED light for 40 seconds and subjected to mechanical tests for compressive strength, flexural strength, flexural modulous and nano hardness. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Results obtained were subjected to one way ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc test at significance (p <0.05). RESULTS: There was significant differences among composites restorative resins tested. CFM Nano hybrid composite exhibited highest hardness values. Flexural strength, flexural modulous and hardness properties of Ever X and Z350 were almost similar. Compressive strength value of Ever X was high compared with other four composites. SDR exhibited least values when compared with other composites. CONCLUSION: Differences in compressive strength, hardness, flexural strength and modulous is due to differences in percentage and type of filler particles in all composite resin material tested. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6006874/ /pubmed/29962780 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_160_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Meenakumari, C.
Bhat, K. Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
Singh, Nitika
Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title_full Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title_short Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of mechanical properties of newer nanoposterior restorative resin composites: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962780
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_160_18
work_keys_str_mv AT meenakumaric evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofnewernanoposteriorrestorativeresincompositesaninvitrostudy
AT bhatkmanohar evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofnewernanoposteriorrestorativeresincompositesaninvitrostudy
AT bansalrahul evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofnewernanoposteriorrestorativeresincompositesaninvitrostudy
AT singhnitika evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofnewernanoposteriorrestorativeresincompositesaninvitrostudy