Comparative Study on the Compressive Strength of a New Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer (Amalgomer CR) and Resin-coated High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement (Equia Forte) with a Nanohybrid Composite Material (Tetric N Ceram) in a Simulated Oral Environment: An In Vitro Study
Sonu Baby, Afin Ummar, Sinju Paul
Keywords :
Amalgomer CR, Compressive strength, Equia Forte, Posterior class II restorations, Tetric N Ceram
Citation Information :
Baby S, Ummar A, Paul S. Comparative Study on the Compressive Strength of a New Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer (Amalgomer CR) and Resin-coated High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement (Equia Forte) with a Nanohybrid Composite Material (Tetric N Ceram) in a Simulated Oral Environment: An In Vitro Study. Cons Dent Endod J 2018; 3 (2):40-44.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the compressive strength of a new ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR) and resin coated high strength glass ionomer. cement (GIC) (Equia forte) with a nanohybrid composite (tetric N ceram).
Methodology: Twenty four maxillary premolar teeth were selected. Selected teeth after cleaning were mounted in acrylic resin blocks exposing the crown. Class II cavities were prepared. Samples were divided into three groups of 8 teeth;
• Group 1: Class II cavity restored with Tetric N Ceram composite (control group)
• Group 2: Class II cavity restored with amalgomer CR
• Group 3: Class II cavity restored with equia Forte
Restored samples stored in artificial saliva for 2 weeks and subjected to compressive strength test using the universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min. The failure load was recorded. SPSS software was employed for statistical analysis. Mean compressive strength and mean compressive load was calculated. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc tests served for comparison of compressive strength among the study groups. The significance level was set at 0.001.
Conclusion: Tetric N ceram has a high compressive strength compared to amalgomer CR and equia forte. It can be concluded that tetric N ceram may be a better posterior restorative in comparison with Amalgomer CR and Equia Forte.
Vaid DS, Shah NC, Bilgi PS. One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2015 Nov;18(6):449-452.
Ayad NM, Elnogoly SA, Badie OM. An in-vitro study of the physico-mechanical properties of a new esthetic restorative versus dental amalgam. Archives of Oral Research. 2008 Nov 29;4(3):137-144.
Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB. A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today. 2009 Jul 1;28(7): 122-123.
Leung VH, Darvell BW. Artificial salivas for in vitro studies of dental materials. Journal of dentistry. 1997 Nov 1;25(6):475-484.
Jain N, Wadkar A. Effect of Nanofiller Technology on Surface Properties of Nanofilled and Nanohybrid Composites. Int J Dent Oral Health, Volume1. 2015;1.
Hegde MN, Hegde P, Bhandary S, Deepika K. An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2011 Jan;14(1):36.
Tetric SD. Available from URL: http://www. ivoclarvivadent. co. kr/ko/products/restorative-materials/composites/tetricn- ceram-bulk-fill 2014.
Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2002 Jun 1;87(6):642-649.
Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Kawai K, Tsuchitani Y. Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. American Journal of Dentistry. 1995 Aug;8(4):173-178.
Agarwal RS, Hiremath H, Agarwal J, Garg A. Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: An in vitro study. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2015 Jan;18(1):56-61.
Ferracane JL. Resin composite—state of the art. Dental materials. 2011 Jan 1;27(1):29-38.
Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clinical oral investigations. 2010 Aug 1;14(4):441-458.
Bhattacharya A, Vaidya S, Tomer AK, Mangat P, Raina AA. Evaluation and comparison of physical properties and fluoride release of newly introduced ceramic reinforced glass-ionomer restorative material with other glass ionomer cements–An in vitro study. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 2017; 3(4): 486-492.
Nigam AG, Jaiswal JN, Murthy RC, Pandey RK. Estimation of Fluoride Release from Various Dental Materials in Different Media—An In Vitro Study. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2009 Jan;2(1):1-8.
Wang Y, Darvell BW. Hertzian load-bearing capacity of a ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement stored wet and dry. dental materials. 2009 Aug 1;25(8):952-955.
Gu YW, Yap AU, Cheang P, Khor KA. Effects of incorporation of HA/ZrO2 into glass ionomer cement (GIC). Biomaterials. 2005 Mar 1;26(7):713-720.
Kasuga T, Yoshida M, Ikushima AJ, Tuchiya M, Kusakari H. Stability of zirconia-toughened bioactive glass-ceramics: in vivo study using dogs. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 1993 Jan 1;4(1):36-39.
Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clinical oral investigations. 2013 Mar 1;17(2):619-626.
Gururaj M, Shetty R, Nayak M, Shetty S, Kumar CV. Fluoride releasing and uptake capacities of esthetic restorations. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2013 Sep 1;14(5):887-891.
