Literature DB >> 21365459

Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials.

Nicoleta Ilie1, Reinhard Hickel, Anca Silvia Valceanu, Karin Christine Huth.   

Abstract

The ability of a restorative material to withstand fracture is of crucial importance especially in stress-bearing area. Therefore, the study aims to analyse the fracture toughness of a large number of dental restorative materials categories. The fracture toughness (K(IC)) of 69 restorative materials belonging to ten materials categories-micro-hybrid, nanofilled, microfilled, packable, ormocer-based, and flowable resin-based composites (RBC), compomers and flowable compomers, as well as glass ionomer cements (GIC) and resin-modified GIC was measured by means of the single-edge notched-beam method after storing the samples (n = 8) for 24 h in distilled water. Data were analyzed with the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey's test and partial eta-squared statistics (p < 0.05). Large variations between the tested materials within a material category were found. The lowest fracture toughness was reached in the GIC group, followed by the microfilled RBCs, resin-modified GIC, and flowable compomers, which do not differ significantly among each other as a material group. The ormocer-based, packable, and micro-hybrid RBCs performed statistically similar, reaching the highest fracture toughness values. Between the two categories of flowables-composites and compomers-no differences were measured. The correlation between K(IC) and filler volume (0.34) and respective filler weight (0.40) was low. K(IC) increased with the volume fraction of fillers until a critical value of 57%, following with a plateau, with constant values until ca. 65% volume fraction. Above this value, K(IC) decreased slightly. Due to the very large variability of the fracture toughness within a material type, the selection of a suitable restorative material should have not been done with respect to a specific material category, especially in stress-bearing areas, but by considering the individual measured material properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21365459     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  26 in total

1.  Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.

Authors:  J W van Dijken
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth.

Authors:  J-P Van Nieuwenhuysen; W D'Hoore; J Carvalho; V Qvist
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations.

Authors:  David C Sarrett
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.304

4.  The effects of thermocycling on the flexural strength and flexural modulus of modern resin-based filling materials.

Authors:  R Janda; J-F Roulet; M Latta; St Rüttermann
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2006-01-10       Impact factor: 5.304

Review 5.  Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry.

Authors:  M A Naasan; T F Watson
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.522

6.  Variables affecting the fracture toughness of dental composites.

Authors:  J L Ferracane; R C Antonio; H Matsumoto
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 6.116

7.  Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel.

Authors:  Eileen A Glasspoole; Robert L Erickson; Carel L Davidson
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.304

8.  Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives.

Authors:  Adrian U J Yap; S M Chung; W S Chow; K T Tsai; C T Lim
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.440

Review 9.  Review of the fracture toughness approach.

Authors:  Karl-Johan Soderholm
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  Fracture toughness of experimental dental composites aged in ethanol.

Authors:  J L Ferracane; H X Berge
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 6.116

View more
  25 in total

1.  Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents.

Authors:  Julius Zoergiebel; Nicoleta Ilie
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Effects of water-aging on self-healing dental composite containing microcapsules.

Authors:  Junling Wu; Michael D Weir; Mary Anne S Melo; Howard E Strassler; Hockin H K Xu
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  The effect of aging methods on the fracture toughness and physical stability of an oxirane/acrylate, ormocer, and Bis-GMA-based resin composites.

Authors:  Hamad Algamaiah; Robert Danso; Jeffrey Banas; Steve R Armstrong; Kyumin Whang; H Ralph Rawls; Erica C Teixeira
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-05-18       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation.

Authors:  Sevil Gurgan; Zeynep Bilge Kutuk; Esra Ergin; Sema Seval Oztas; Filiz Yalcin Cakir
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars.

Authors:  Maria D Gaintantzopoulou; Vellore K Gopinath; Spiros Zinelis
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement.

Authors:  Vu Thi Kieu Diem; Martin J Tyas; Hien C Ngo; Lam Hoai Phuong; Ngo Dong Khanh
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-07-07       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Effect of a calcium chloride solution treatment on physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements.

Authors:  Dimitrios Dionysopoulos; Kosmas Tolidis; Dimitrios Tortopidis; Paris Gerasimou; Thrasyvoulos Sfeikos
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.634

8.  Non-silicate nanoparticles for improved nanohybrid resin composites.

Authors:  Leina Nakanishi; Marina R Kaizer; Suzane Brandeburski; Sergio S Cava; Alvaro Della Bona; Yu Zhang; Rafael R Moraes
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 5.304

9.  Effect of dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate mass fraction on fracture toughness and antibacterial properties of CaP nanocomposite.

Authors:  Junling Wu; Han Zhou; Michael D Weir; Mary Anne S Melo; Eric D Levine; Hockin H K Xu
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials.

Authors:  Carmem S Pfeifer
Journal:  Dent Clin North Am       Date:  2017-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.