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

3Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Somani, S., Shetty, R., Bhargava, K., Bhawalkar, A., Kumar, T., Newase, P., & Sarode, G. (2023). Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of three different direct posterior restorative materials: An In vitro study. Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, 16(5), 665–669. https://doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_329_21

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free