Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Fracture Resistance of Compomer and Composite Restoratives|
|Authors:||Yap, A.U.J. |
|Source:||Yap, A.U.J.,Chung, S.M.,Chow, W.S.,Tsai, K.T.,Lim, C.T. (2004-01). Fracture Resistance of Compomer and Composite Restoratives. Operative Dentistry 29 (1) : 29-34. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.|
|Abstract:||This study evaluated and compared the fracture toughness of compomers and composites. Three compomer (Compoglass F [CG], Vivadent; F2000 [FT], 3M-ESPE; Dyract Posterior [DP], Dentsply) and three composite (Tetric Ceram [TC], Vivadent; Z250 [ZT], 3M-ESPE; Esthet X [EX], Dentsply) restoratives were selected for the study. Single-edged notched specimens (25 x 2 x 2 mm) were fabricated according to manufacturers' instructions and conditioned in distilled water at 37°C for one week prior to testing. Seven specimens were made for each material. The specimens were loaded to failure using an Instron microtester with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data were subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Independent Samples T-test at significance level 0.05. The mean fracture toughness (KIC) ranged from 0.97 to 1.23 MPam 1/2 for compomers and 1.75 to 1.92 MPam 1/2 for composites. The fracture toughness of compomers was significantly lower than their composite counterparts. No significant difference in KIC values was observed among the different composites. When the compomers were compared, FT had significantly higher fracture toughness than DP and CG. In view of their poorer resistance to crack propagation, compomers are not recommended for use in stress-bearing areas.|
|Source Title:||Operative Dentistry|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Feb 16, 2018
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.