Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of three different direct posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study

Q4 Medicine
Karan Bhargava, Shruti K. Somani, R. Shetty, Abhilasha Bhawalkar, Tanaya Kumar, Pooja Newase, G. Sarode
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of three different direct posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study","authors":"Karan Bhargava, Shruti K. Somani, R. Shetty, Abhilasha Bhawalkar, Tanaya Kumar, Pooja Newase, G. Sarode","doi":"10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_329_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the compressive strength, Vickers microhardness number, and wear resistance of amalgam (DPI), Filtek Z350 nanohybrid (3M ESPE), and Zirconomer (Shofu) restorative materials after 24 h and 3 months. Methodology: The restorative materials were divided into Zirconomer (Group I), Filtek Z350 (Group II), and amalgam (Group III). These materials were placed in cylindrical molds to prepare the specimens. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C. The specimens were tested at 24 h and 3 months for compressive strength, wear resistance, and microhardness. Results: Group I showed significantly less maximum load (N) and compression strength (MPa) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in microhardness between the three groups. Group I showed significantly more wear (weight loss [g]) and wear (weight loss [%]) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II. Conclusion: The study concludes that amalgam and nanohybrid composite performed better than Zirconomer at the end of 24 h and 3 months.","PeriodicalId":18412,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth","volume":"1 1","pages":"665 - 669"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_329_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the compressive strength, Vickers microhardness number, and wear resistance of amalgam (DPI), Filtek Z350 nanohybrid (3M ESPE), and Zirconomer (Shofu) restorative materials after 24 h and 3 months. Methodology: The restorative materials were divided into Zirconomer (Group I), Filtek Z350 (Group II), and amalgam (Group III). These materials were placed in cylindrical molds to prepare the specimens. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C. The specimens were tested at 24 h and 3 months for compressive strength, wear resistance, and microhardness. Results: Group I showed significantly less maximum load (N) and compression strength (MPa) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in microhardness between the three groups. Group I showed significantly more wear (weight loss [g]) and wear (weight loss [%]) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II. Conclusion: The study concludes that amalgam and nanohybrid composite performed better than Zirconomer at the end of 24 h and 3 months.
三种不同直接后路修复材料力学性能的比较评价:体外研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
43 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信