COMPARISON OF DIAMETRAL TENSILE, FLEXURAL, AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF FIVE CORE BUILD-UP MATERIALS

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 2007 Sayı: 1, 18 - 23, 01.01.2007

Doç. Dr. Funda Bayındır Arş. Gör. Dr. Cenk Burak Yılmaz

Öz

The purpose of this laboratory investigation was to evaluate three mechanical properties; the compressive, diametral tensile and flexural strengths of five different core build-up materials. In this study, a light-actived Hybrid composite resin (President), resin modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) (Vitremer), amalgam (Cavex avalloy), glass-ionomer (GIC) (Logofil) and compomer (Dyract AP) restorative materials were used. 120 samples were prepared according to American Dental Association specification No. 27 for testing diametral tensile strength (DTS), compressive strength (CS) and flexural strength (FS). Forty specimens were prepared in cylindric molds (6 mm in height, 3 mm in diameter) for the CS measurements and forty specimens (3
mm in height, 6 mm in diameter) for diametral tensile strength (DTS). Forty specimens were prepared (25X 2 X 2 mm) for the FS measurements. All cores materials were prepared according to manufacturer’s instruction at a temperature of 23.0 +/- 1.0 degrees C. Haunsfield press and pull machine was used for compressive and flexural strength and the module were determined at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Diametral testing was carried out at 1 mm/min. Analysis of variance was used for statistically evaluation. Mean compressive, diametral tensile and flexural strengths with associated standard deviations were calculated for each material. The results of this study indicated that the diametral tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength of the resin composite (President) and amalgam material were significantly higher than the other tested materials (p<0.001). On the other hand, the diametral tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength of glass ionomer based materials (Logofil, Vitremer) were statistically lower than for resin composites, compomer and amalgam.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Core materials, diametral tensile strength, compressive strength

BEŞ FARKLI KOR MATERYALİNİN ÇAPSAL GERİLİM, BÜKÜLME VE SIKIŞTIRMA DİRENCİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bu çal man n amac , be farkl kor materyalinin üç mekanik özelliGi; çapsal germe direnci, s k t rma direnci ve bükülme direncini deGerlendirmektir. Bu çalma için, kla sertle en hibrid kompozit rezin (President, Light cure Dynamic Universal hibrit Compozit, München, Germany), rezin modifiye cam iyonomer (Vitremer, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul MN, USA), amalgam (Cavex Avalloy, Harlem, Hollanda), cam iyonomer (Logofil, D-Dental Alten, Alten Walde, Germany) ve compomer (Dyract AP) materyalleri kullan ld . Çapsal germe direnci, s k t rma direnci ve bükülme direnci testi için toplam 120 örnek American Dental Association 27 nolu spesifikasyonuna göre haz rland . 6mm yüksekliGinde ve 3mm çap nda 40 silindirik örnek, çapsal germe direnci için ve 25X2X2 mm boyutlar nda 40 örnek ise bükülme direnci testi için haz rland . Tüm kor materyalleri üretici firma önerileri doGrultusunda 23.0 +/- 1.0 0C’de haz rland .Testler Hounsfield çekme-s k t rma makinesinde, bükülme ve s k t rma gerilim testleri 0.5 mm/dak.ve çapsal gerilim testi için 1 mm/dak. ba l k h z ile yap ld . Lstatistiksel deGerlendirme için varyans analizi kullan ld . Her bir materyal için Çapsal germe direnci, s k t rma direnci ve bükülme direncine ait ortalama ve standart sapma deGerleri hesapland . Çal man nsonuçlar na göre Çapsal germe direnci, s k t rmadirenci ve fleksural gerilim direnci aç s ndan Kompozit resin (President) ve Amalgam(Cavex avalloy), diGer test edilen materyallere göre önemli derecede yüksek bulundu. (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kor materyali, Çapsal germe direnci, s k t rma direnci

Kaynakça

• Chan K, Azarbal P, Kerber P. Bond strength of cements to crown bases. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46:297.
• Combe EC, Shaglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Mechanical properties of direct core build-up materials. Dent Mater 1999; 15:158-165.
• Huysmans MC, Van der Varst PG. Finite element analysis of quasistatic and fatigue failure of post and cores. J Dent. 1993; 21:57-64.
• Huysmans MC, Van der Varst PG. Mechanical longevity estimation model for post-and-core restorations. Dent Mater 1995; 11:252-257.
• Nicholls JI. Crown retention. II. The effect of convergence angle variation on the computed stresses in the luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 1974; 31:651-657.
• Yettram AL, Wright KW, Pickard HM. Finite element stress analysis of the crowns of normal and restored teeth. J Dent Res 1976;55:10041011.
• Craig RG, Farah JW. Stress analysis and design of single restorations and fixed bridges.Oral Sci Rev 1977; 10:45-74.
• Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82:272-276.
• Levartovsky S, Kuyinu E, Georgescu M, Goldstein GR. A comparison of the diametral tensile strength, the flexural strength, and the compressive strength of two new core materials to a silver alloy-reinforced glass-ionomer material. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:481-485.
• Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF. Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 1992 ;68:584-590.
• Netti CA, Cunningham DE, Latta GH. Tensile strengths of composite core materials containing added colorants. J Prosthet Dent 1988 ;59:547552.
• Jordan RE, Suzuki M, Davidson DF. Clinical evaluation of a universal dentin bonding resin: preserving dentition through new materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1993; 124:71-76.
• Gateau P, Sabek M, Dailey B. Fatigue testing and microscopic evaluation of post and core restorations under artificial crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82:341-347.
• Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972; 132:133-135.
• Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark HE. Long-term F release from glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984; 63:158-160.
• Lacefield WR, Reindl MC, Retief DH. Tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53:194-198.
• Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 7th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1985: 225-252.
• Lloyd CH, Mitchell L. The fracture toughness of tooth coloured restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1984; 11:257-72.
• DeWald JP, Arcoria CJ, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of glass-cermet cores under cast crowns. Dent Mater 1990;6:129-132.
• Arcoria CJ, DeWald JP, Moody CR, Ferracane JL. A comparative study of the bond strengths of amalgam and alloy-glass ionomer cores. J Oral Rehabil 1989; 16:301-307.
• Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:425-429.
• Mount GJ. Clinical placement of modern glassionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1993; 24:99107.
• Duke ES. Advances in restorative core materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21:976-978.
• Craig RG, Powers JM. Restorative Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Lois: Mosby: 2002: 248.
• Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Lauer HC, Buchler A. Laboratory strength of glass ionomer cement, compomers, and resin composites. J Prosthodont 2002;11:86-91.
• Irie M, Nakai H. Flexural properties and swelling after storage in water of polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer). Dent Mater J 1998; 17:77-82.
• Momoi Y, Hirosaki K, Kohno A, McCabe JF.. Flexural properties of resin-modified "hybrid" glass-ionomers in comparison with conventional acid-base glass-ionomers. Dent Mater J 1995; 14:109-119