Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Conventional Core Materials with Nanohybrid Composite Resin Core Material an in Vitro Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Abstract

Several dental materials have been used for core build-up procedures. Most of these materials were not specifically developed for this purpose, but as a consequence of their properties, have found application in core build-up procedures. Improvements in composites and the development of nanocomposites have led to their use as a core build up material due to their superior mechanical properties, optical properties and ease of handling. However it is not clear if they have better mechanical properties than the conventional core build up materials like amalgam, GIC and dual cure composite core build up material. The strength of the core material is very important and this study was undertaken to compare the mechanical properties of materials used for direct core foundations. The differences between the compressive strength and flexural strength of Filtek Z350 nanocomposite with conventional core build up materials like Amalgam, Vitremer GIC and Fluorocore were tested. Cylindrical plexi glass split molds of dimension 6 ± 1 mm [height] x4 ± 1 mm [diameter] were used to fabricate 15 samples of each core material for testing the compressive strength and rectangular plexi glass split molds of dimension 25 ± 1 mm [length] x 2 ± 1 mm[height] x2 ± 1 mm [width] used for fabricating samples for flexural strength. The samples were stored a water bath at 250 °C for 24 h before testing. The samples were tested using a Universal Instron testing machine. The results of the study showed that Fluorocore had the highest compressive strength and flexural strength followed by Filtek Z350 [nanocomposite] Amalgam had the least flexural strength and Vitremer GIC had the least compressive strength. Thus flurocore and nanocomposite are stronger than other core build up materials and hence should be preferred over other conventional core build up materials in extensively damaged teeth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Combe EC, Shaglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NHF (1999) Mechanical properties of direct core materials. Dent Mat 15:158–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN (1999) Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 82:272–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yuzugully B, Ciftci Y, Saygili G, Canay S (2008) Diametrical tensile and compressive strength of several core materials. J Prosthet Dent 17:102–107

    Google Scholar 

  4. Levartovsky S, Kuyinu E, Georgescu M, Goldstein GR (1994) 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 72:481–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA (2000) Fracture toughness of various core build-up materials. J Prosthet Dent 9:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  6. Saygili G, Sahmali SM (2002) Comparative study of the physical properties of core materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 22:355–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Santos GC Jr, El-Mowafy O, Rubo JH (2004) Diametrical tensile strength of a resin composite core with non metallic prefabricated posts: an invitro study. J Prosthet Dent 91(4):335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF (1992) Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 68:584–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lo CS, Millstein PL, Nathanson D (1995) In vitro shear strength of bonded amalgam cores with and without pins. J Prosthet Dent 74:385–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Olivia RA, Lowe JA (1987) Dimensional stability of silver amalgam and composite used as core materials. J Prosthet Dent 57:554–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Piwowarczk A, Ottl P, Lauer HC, Buchler A (2002) Laboratory strength of glass ionomer cement, compomers and resin composites. J Prosthet Dent 11:86–91

    Google Scholar 

  12. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift ED Jr (1999) Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 11:234–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitra SB, Wu D (2003) Holmes BN an application of nanotechnology in advanced materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1382–1390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Core materials: laboratory testing methods. ADA Prod Rev (2008) 3(4): 1–12

  16. Posterior composites: laboratory testing methods. ADA Prod Rev (2006) 1(1): 3–9

  17. Monteiro GQM, Montes MAJRM (2010) Evaluation of linear polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of dental composites. Mater Res 13(1):51–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Filho LER, Burger LADS, Kenshima S, Bauer JRDO, Medeiros IS (2006) Effect of light-activation methods and water storage on the flexural strength of two composite resins and a compomer. Braz Oral Res 20(2):143–147

    Google Scholar 

  19. Roberto Sorrentinob R et al (2007) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strain and stress distributions in endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored with different post, core and crown materials. Dental Mater 23:983–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nurray A, Ozel Y (2007) A comparison of the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different resin composites. J Hacettepe 31:26–35

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen BI, Pagnillo M, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS (1997) Cyclic fatigue testing of five endodontic post designs supported by four core materials. J Prosthet Dent 78:458–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen BI, Pagnillo M, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS (1997) Fracture strength of three core restorative materials supported with or without a prefabricated splint shank post. J Prosthet Dent 78:560–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gateau P, Sabek M, Dailey B (2001) In vitro fatigue resistance of glass ionomer cements used in post and core restorations. J Prosthet Dent 86:149–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DI (1997) An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 78:5–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shaini FJ, Fleming GJP, Shortall ACC, Marquis PM (1999) A comparison of the mechanical properties of a gallium based alloy with a spherical high copper amalgam. Dent Mater 17:142–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rafiee MA, Rafiee J (2009) Strength properties of light cured dental restorative composites. http://www.rafiee.us/files/Biomaterials_NEBEC.pdf

  27. Ahn SG, Sorenson JA (2003) Comparison of mechanical properties of various post and core materials. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 41:288–296

    Google Scholar 

  28. Levartovsky S, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M, Goldstein GR (1996) Shear bond strength of several new core materials. J Prosthet Dent 75:154–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A (2008) Flexural strength and Weibull analysis of a microhybrid and a nanofill composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending tests. Dent Mater 24:426–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Huysmans MCDNJM, Van der Varst PGT (1995) Mechanical longevity estimation model for post-and-core restorations. Dent Mater 11:252–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodrigues SA Jr, Scherrer SS, Ferracane JL, Bona DI (2008) Microstructural characterization and fracture behavior of a microhybrid and a nanofill composite. Dental Mater 24:1281–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stober T, Rammelsberg P (2005) The failure rate of adhesively retained composite core build-ups in comparison with metal-added glass ionomer core build-ups. J Dent 33:27–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arksornnukit M, Takahash HJ (2004) Thermo-hydrolytic stability of core foundation and restorative composites. J Prosthet Dent 92(4):348–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yamazaki T, Scheicker SR, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Johnston W (2006) Viscoelastic behavior and fracture toughness of six glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 96:266–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Satish G, Nainan MT (2006) Invitro evaluation of flexural strength and flexural modulus of elasticity of different composite restoratives. J Conserv Dent 9:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moraes RR, Goncalves LS, Lancellotti, Consani S, Sobrinho LC (2009) Nanohybrid resin composites : nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? J Operative Dent 34:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lakshmi S, Krishna VG, Sivagami (2006) Prosthodontic considerations of endodontically managed teeth. J Conserv Dent 9:104–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Upadhyay NP, Kishore G (2005) Glass ionomer cements—the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 18:158–165

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fukui Y, Komada W, Yoshida K, Otake S, Okada D, Miura H (2009) Effect of reinforcement with resin composite on fracture strength of structurally compromised roots. Dent Mater 28:602–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shenoy A (2008) End of road for amalgam. J Conserv Dent 11:99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kerby RE, Knobloch L, Thakur A (1997) Strength properties of visible light cured resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Operative Dent 22:79–83

    Google Scholar 

  42. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A (1998) Influence of UEDMA, BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater 14(1):51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Annusavice KJ (2004). In: Phillips’ Sciences of Dental Materials, 11th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis (1st Indian reprint)

  44. Arrais CAG, Kasaz AC, Albino LGB, Rodrigues JA, Reis AF (2010) Effect of curing mode on the hardness of dual-cured composite resin core build-up materials. Braz Oral Res 24(2):245–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Resin-based composites J Am Dent Assoc (2003) 134;510–512 134

  46. 3M/ESPE–Filtek™ Z350 Universal Restorative System—Technical Product Profile

  47. McLean JW (1990) Cermet cements. J Am Dent Assoc 120:43–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Akkayan B, Gulmez T (2002) Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 87:431–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. American National Standards Institute and American Dental Association (1993) Specification no. 27: Resin-based filling materials. American Dental Association, Chicago

  50. Rathke BK (2001) Using core markers to enhance visualization of the core material/tooth interface. J Am Dent Assoc 132:778–779

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Oxford Dental College & Hospital, Bangalore, India

    Narasimha Jayanthi & V. Vinod

Authors
  1. Narasimha Jayanthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Vinod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narasimha Jayanthi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jayanthi, N., Vinod, V. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Conventional Core Materials with Nanohybrid Composite Resin Core Material an in Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13, 281–289 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0236-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0236-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation