Annals and Essences of Dentistry
Open Access
ISSN: 0975-8798, 0976-156X
ISSN: 0975-8798, 0976-156X
Krishna Rao kilaru, Dharm Hinduja, Kidyoor K.H, shannu Kumar, Nageswara Rao R
Background. The authors evaluated the compressive strength, Vicker`s hardness and modulus of elasticity of two hybrid composites, comparing them to two packable resin composites in order to determine differences that occur with respect to specific restorative materials. Methods. The authors studied the following resin-based restorative materials: two hybrid composites (Z-100, CHARISMA) and two packable resin composites (SUREFIL, SOLITAIRE- 2) The objective of the present study was to test compressive strength, Vicker`s hardness and modulus of elasticity. Specific sized moulds were prepared for each restorative material, which were then photopolymerized. Following this, the moulds were stored in physiologic saline. Compressive strength was evaluated using universal testing machine and Vicker’s hardness was determined using Vicker`s indenter. The test for modulus of elasticity was conducted using a three point bending technique and universal testing machine.Results. Results calculated by one-way ANOVA and Tukey`s test indicated that the hybrid composite (Z-100) was superior in all the three physical properties evaluated, followed by SUREFIL, SOLITAIRE- 2, and CHARISMA.Conclusion. The hybrid composite Z-100 is the material of choice for restoration in high stress bearing areas, but further clinical research is still needed in order to substantiate these results. Clinical Implications. Packable composites may be easier for clinicians to handle than conventional resin-based composites; however, their physical properties were not superior to those of the conventional hybrid resin-based composite
Published Date: 2010-12-31;