Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 2768
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of three different direct posterior restorative materials: An in vitro study


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Graduate student, Department Of Endodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Michigan, USA
3 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Karan Bhargava,
Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_329_21

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the compressive strength, Vickers microhardness number, and wear resistance of amalgam (DPI), Filtek Z350 nanohybrid (3M ESPE), and Zirconomer (Shofu) restorative materials after 24 h and 3 months. Methodology: The restorative materials were divided into Zirconomer (Group I), Filtek Z350 (Group II), and amalgam (Group III). These materials were placed in cylindrical molds to prepare the specimens. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C. The specimens were tested at 24 h and 3 months for compressive strength, wear resistance, and microhardness. Results: Group I showed significantly less maximum load (N) and compression strength (MPa) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in microhardness between the three groups. Group I showed significantly more wear (weight loss [g]) and wear (weight loss [%]) when compared with Group III (control) and Group II. Conclusion: The study concludes that amalgam and nanohybrid composite performed better than Zirconomer at the end of 24 h and 3 months.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Somani S
    -  Shetty R
    -  Bhargava K
    -  Bhawalkar A
    -  Kumar T
    -  Newase P
    -  Sarode G
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1021    
    PDF Downloaded13    

Recommend this journal