Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 212-216
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708438
Original Article

Fracture Toughness Comparison of Three Indirect Composite Resins Using 4-Point Flexural Strength Method

Zohreh Moradi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
,
Mahdi Abbasi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
,
Rayhaneh Khalesi
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Jondishapour University of Medical Science, Ahvaz, Iran
,
Masoumeh Hasani Tabatabaei
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
,
Zahra Shahidi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financially supported by the Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran (95–04–69–33541).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The advantages of indirect composite restorations such as less crack formation during their computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing process, compared with ceramic restorations, have resulted in their growing popularity. However, restoration failure is a major concern with regard to the long-term clinical success of restorations and may occur as the result of propagation of a crack originated from an internal flaw in the restoration. This study aimed to compare the fracture toughness of three indirect composite resins.

Materials and Methods In this in vitro experimental study, 10 specimens measuring 3 × 3 × 18 mm were fabricated of Gradia, Crios, and high impact polymer composite indirect composites. A single edge notch with a diameter < 0.3 mm and 0.3 mm length was created in the 9 mm longitudinal dimension of specimens using a no. 11 surgical scalpel. The specimens were then subjected to 4-point flexural strength test in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.1 mm/s until failure.

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test. The statistical power was set at p ˂ 0.05.

Results One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in fracture toughness of the three composite groups (p = 0.000). According to the Tukey HSD analysis, the fracture toughness of HIPC was significantly higher than that of the other two composites. The fracture toughness of Gradia was significantly lower among all.

Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the results showed that high temperature-pressure polymerization can increase resistance to crack propagation and subsequently improve the clinical service of indirect composite restorations. Although we do not know the filler volume percentage of HIPC, it seems that filler volume percentage of the composite is inversely correlated with fracture toughness.

Keywords

composite resins - computer-aided design - fracture toughness


Publication History

Article published online:
13 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Watanabe H, Khera SC, Vargas MA, Qian F. Fracture toughness comparison of six resin composites. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (03) 418-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, Mahmoud SH. Fracture resistance of prepared premolars restored with bonded new lab composite and all-ceramic inlay/onlay restorations: laboratory study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30 (03) 229-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Alves PB, Brandt WC, Neves ACC, Cunha LG, Silva-Concilio LR. Mechanical properties of direct and indirect composites after storage for 24 hours and 10 months. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (01) 117-122
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bartlett D, Sundaram G. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19 (06) 613-617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wertzberger BE, Steere JT, Pfeifer RM, Nensel MA, Latta MA, Gross SM. Physical characterization of a self-healing dental restorative material. J Appl Polym Sci 2010; 118 (01) 428-434
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duquia RdeC, Osinaga PWR, Demarco FF, de V Habekost L, Conceição EN. Cervical microleakage in MOD restorations: in vitro comparison of indirect and direct composite. Oper Dent 2006; 31 (06) 682-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Alamoush RA, Silikas N, Salim NA, Al-Nasrawi S, Satterthwaite JD. Effect of the composition of CAD/CAM composite blocks on mechanical properties. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 4893143 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4893143.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Okada R, Asakura M, Ando A. et al. Fracture strength testing of crowns made of CAD/CAM composite resins. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62 (03) 287-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nguyen J-F, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Matzinger M, Hahnel S, Preis V, Rosentritt M. Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (02) 725-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ramírez-Sebastià A, Bortolotto T, Roig M, Krejci I. Composite vs ceramic computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing crowns in endodontically treated teeth: analysis of marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2013; 38 (06) 663-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16 (02) 489-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Medina JI Tirado, Nagy WW, Dhuru VB, Ziebert AJ. The effect of thermocycling on the fracture toughness and hardness of core buildup materials. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (05) 474-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Soderholm KJ. Review of the fracture toughness approach. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e63-e77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (01) 9-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift Jr EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89 (06) 551-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liu X, Fok A, Li H. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (03) 327-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2001; 14 (04) 216-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2013; 22 (05) 419-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dong W, Zhou X, Wu Z. On fracture process zone and crack extension resistance of concrete based on initial fracture toughness. Constr Build Mater 2013; 49: 352-363
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kim K-H, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87 (06) 642-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nguyen JF, Ruse D, Phan AC, Sadoun MJ. High-temperature-pressure polymerized resin-infiltrated ceramic networks. J Dent Res 2014; 93 (01) 62-67
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Properties of experimental urethane dimethacrylate-based dental resin composite blocks obtained via thermo-polymerization under high pressure. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (05) 535-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yap AUJ, Chung SM, Chow WS, Tsai KT, Lim CT. Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004; 29 (01) 29-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Musanje L, Ferracane JL. Effects of resin formulation and nanofiller surface treatment on the properties of experimental hybrid resin composite. Biomaterials 2004; 25 (18) 4065-4071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Moloney AC, Kausch HH, Stieger HR. The fracture of particulate-filled epoxide resins. J Mater Sci 1983; 18 (01) 208-216
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Miyazaki M, Oshida Y, Moore BK, Onose H. Effect of light exposure on fracture toughness and flexural strength of light-cured composites. Dent Mater 1996; 12 (06) 328-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Badawy R, El-Mowafy O, Tam LE. Fracture toughness of chairside CAD/CAM materials - alternative loading approach for compact tension test. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (07) 847-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ikejima I, Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites with varying filler volume fraction, particle size and silanation. Dent Mater 2003; 19 (03) 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kim KH, Park JH, Imai Y, Kishi T. Fracture toughness and acoustic emission behavior of dental composite resins. Eng Fract Mech 1991; 40 (4-5) 811-819
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ferracane JL, Antonio RC, Matsumoto H. Variables affecting the fracture toughness of dental composites. J Dent Res 1987; 66 (06) 1140-1145
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Sarabi N, Taji H, Jalayer J, Ghaffari N, Forghani M. Fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated premolars restored with different adhesive restorations. J Dent Mater Tech 2015; 4 (01) 13-20
    Google Scholar