Skip to main content

Mechanical properties and biocompatibility of polymer infiltrated sodium aluminum silicate restorative composites

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.


A new type of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network composites (PICNs) was fabricated by infiltrating methacrylate-based monomers into partially sintered porous ceramics. The mechanical properties (flexural strength, flexural modulus, elastic modulus, Vickers hardness, fracture toughness) were investigated and compared with that of the natural tooth and common commercial CAD/CAM blocks. Our results indicated that sintering temperature and corresponding density of porous ceramics have an obvious influence on the mechanical properties, and PICNs could highly mimic the natural tooth in mechanical properties. The biocompatibility experiments evaluated through in vitro cell attachment and proliferation of BMSCs showed good biocompatibility. The mechanical properties and biocompatibility confirmed that PICN could be a promising candidate for CAD/CAM blocks for dental restoration.


  1. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res 2011, 90: 402–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013, 29: 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Swain MV, Coldea A, Bilkhair A, et al. Interpenetrating network ceramic-resin composite dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 2016, 32: 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci 2001, 26: 535–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. Heidelberg: Springer, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM, Van Noort R. Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials. Materials 2009, 2: 514–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmalz G. The biocompatibility of non-amalgam dental filling materials. Eur J Oral Sci 1998, 106: 696–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010, 89: 549–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuy JL, Mann AB, Livi KJ, et al. Nanoindentation mapping of the mechanical properties of human molar tooth enamel. Arch Oral Biol 2002, 47: 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Habelitz S, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, et al. Mechanical properties of human dental enamel on the nanometre scale. Arch Oral Biol 2001, 46: 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xu HHK, Smith DT, Jahanmir S, et al. Indentation damage and mechanical properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1998, 77: 472–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Craig RG, Peyton FA. The microhardness of enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1958, 37: 661–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Plotino G, Grande NM, Bedini R, et al. Flexural properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin. Dent Mater 2007, 23: 1129–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ziskind D, Hasday M, Cohen SR, et al. Young’s modulus of peritubular and intertubular human dentin by nano-indentation tests. J Struct Biol 2011, 174: 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: A critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol M 2003, 14: 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meredith N, Sherriff M, Setchell DJ, et al. Measurement of the microhardness and Young’s modulus of human enamel and dentine using an indentation technique. Arch Oral Biol 1996, 41: 539–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kinney JH, Balooch M, Marshall SJ, et al. Hardness and Young’s modulus of human peritubular and intertubular dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1996, 41: 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lawn BR, Deng Y, Thompson VP. Use of contact testing in the characterization and design of all-ceramic crownlike layer structures: A review. J Prosthet Dent 2001, 86: 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Albero A, Pascual A, Camps I, et al. Comparative characterization of a novel cad-cam polymer-infiltratedceramic-network. J Clin Exp Dent 2015, 7: e495–e500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. VITA ENAMIC®. Available at,27568.html.

  22. Lava™ Ultimate Restorative for CEREC®. Available at—N=5002385+8707795+8707799+8710706+8711017+8711723+87133 93+3294768924&rt=rud.

Download references


This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Nos. 51532003, 51272181, 51672030, and 8127-1138).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu Li.

Additional information

This article is published with open access at

Rights and permissions

Open Access The articles published in this journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, H., Cui, B., Li, J. et al. Mechanical properties and biocompatibility of polymer infiltrated sodium aluminum silicate restorative composites. J Adv Ceram 6, 73–79 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • dental composite
  • polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network composites (PICNs)
  • CAD/CAM blocks
  • mechanical properties
  • biocompatibility