Aim: To measure and compare flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and hardness of some of the commercially available CAD/CAM and conventional materials used to fabricate interim fixed dental prostheses.
Hypotheses: The null hypotheses are: 1-There is no statistical significant deference in the flexural strength among any of the tested materials. 2-There is no statistical significant deference in the modulus of elasticity among any of the tested materials. 3-There is no statistical significant deference in the hardness among any of the tested materials.
Materials and methods: The preparation and testing was carried out in University at Buffalo, School of Dental medicine and Ivoclar Vivadet R&D lab (Amherst, NY, USA) as MS in Oral Sciences thesis project.
Material included in the study were Integrity (Dentsply Caulk), Telio CAD, Telio Lab (Ivoclar Vivadent), Jet (Lang Dental) and Tuff Temp (Pulpdent).
For flexural strength and modulus of elasticity, 10 specimens (2 ± 0.1 mm) x (2 ± 0.1mm) x (25 ± 1.0 mm) and A3 shade (ISO 4049:2009) prepared and subjected to 3 unit bending test until fracture. ANOVA and multiple comparisons done.
For hardness, rectangular cube specimens were indented 15 times using Vickers hardness testing machine. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was done.
Results: for flexural strength Integrity and Telio CAD were significantly higher than Telio Lab, Jet and Tuff Temp (p < 0.05). Telio Lab was significantly higher than Jet and Tuff Temp (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant deference in the flexural strength between Telio CAD and Integrity (p = 0.993) and between Jet and Tuff Temp (p = 0.710).
For modulus of elasticity Integrity was significantly higher than all other groups (p < 0.05). Telio CAD was significantly higher than Jet and Tuff Temp (p < 0.05). Telio Lab was significantly higher than Jet (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant differences between Telio Lab and Telio CAD (p = 0.5), between Telio Lab and Tuff Temp (p = 0.318), and between Jet and Tuff Temp (p = 0.873).
For hardness Jet was significantly lower than all other groups (P > 0.05). Integrity was significantly higher than all other groups (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among Telio Lab, Telio CAD and Tuff Temp with (p = 1) in all comparisons.
Conclusions: Integrity scored the highest flexural strength, highest modulus of elasticity, and hardness. The order from highest to lowest flexural strength is: Integrity > Telio CAD > Telio Lab > Jet > Tuff Temp. The order from highest to lowest modulus of elasticity is: Integrity > Telio CAD > Telio Lab > Tuff Temp > Jet. The order from highest to lowest hardness is: Integrity > Telio CAD > Tuff Temp > Telio Lab > Jet.
|Commitee:||Keblawi, Dana, Monaco, Edward|
|School:||State University of New York at Buffalo|
|School Location:||United States -- New York|
|Source:||MAI 58/02M(E), Masters Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Prosthodontics, Restorative dentistry|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be