Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins
Purpose: To compare the compressive strength of two commercially available laboratorial resins - Solidex® (Shofu) and Cristobal® (Dentsply) - to that of a direct composite resin (Concept®; Vigodent), as a control group.Method: Five specimens of each tested material were fabricated using stainless st...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Association of Support to Oral Health Research (APESB)
2007-05-01
|
| Series: | Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://Compositeresins;Compomers;Dentalprosthetic. |
| _version_ | 1819228272204972032 |
|---|---|
| author | Alexandre Costa Reis BRITO Cintia Fernandes do COUTO Cresus Vinícius Depes de GOUVÊA |
| author_facet | Alexandre Costa Reis BRITO Cintia Fernandes do COUTO Cresus Vinícius Depes de GOUVÊA |
| author_sort | Alexandre Costa Reis BRITO |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: To compare the compressive strength of two commercially available laboratorial resins - Solidex® (Shofu) and Cristobal® (Dentsply) - to that of a direct composite resin (Concept®; Vigodent), as a control group.Method: Five specimens of each tested material were fabricated using stainless steel matrices with the following dimensions: 8 mm of internal diameter on the base, 9 mm of internal diameter on the top and 4 mm of height. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 72 hours and submitted to an axial load by the action of a 2-mm-diameter round-end tip adapted to a universal testing machine (EMIC 500). A 200 kgf load cell was used running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The load and the point of failure were recorded. Results: Means, in kgf, were: Concept® (Ct) = 124.26; Cristobal® (C) =184.63; Solidex® (S) =173.58. Data (means and standard deviations) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey’s for comparisons among the groups using the SPSS software (version 10.0). Significance level was set at á=0.05 (95%). Concept® presented significantly lower (p<0.05) compressive strength than the other two materials, Cristobal® and Solidex®, which, in turn, did not differ significantly to each other.Conclusion: Cristobal® and Solidex® laboratorial resins did not show significant difference to each other and both presented compressive strength significantly higher than that of Concept® direct resin. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T10:54:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-976b4765ce9849bd9876f2007395b9f2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1519-0501 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T10:54:38Z |
| publishDate | 2007-05-01 |
| publisher | Association of Support to Oral Health Research (APESB) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada |
| spelling | doaj.art-976b4765ce9849bd9876f2007395b9f22022-12-21T17:49:49ZengAssociation of Support to Oral Health Research (APESB)Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada1519-05012007-05-0172145148Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial ResinsAlexandre Costa Reis BRITOCintia Fernandes do COUTOCresus Vinícius Depes de GOUVÊAPurpose: To compare the compressive strength of two commercially available laboratorial resins - Solidex® (Shofu) and Cristobal® (Dentsply) - to that of a direct composite resin (Concept®; Vigodent), as a control group.Method: Five specimens of each tested material were fabricated using stainless steel matrices with the following dimensions: 8 mm of internal diameter on the base, 9 mm of internal diameter on the top and 4 mm of height. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 72 hours and submitted to an axial load by the action of a 2-mm-diameter round-end tip adapted to a universal testing machine (EMIC 500). A 200 kgf load cell was used running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The load and the point of failure were recorded. Results: Means, in kgf, were: Concept® (Ct) = 124.26; Cristobal® (C) =184.63; Solidex® (S) =173.58. Data (means and standard deviations) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey’s for comparisons among the groups using the SPSS software (version 10.0). Significance level was set at á=0.05 (95%). Concept® presented significantly lower (p<0.05) compressive strength than the other two materials, Cristobal® and Solidex®, which, in turn, did not differ significantly to each other.Conclusion: Cristobal® and Solidex® laboratorial resins did not show significant difference to each other and both presented compressive strength significantly higher than that of Concept® direct resin.Compositeresins;Compomers;Dentalprosthetic.Composite resinsCompomersDental prosthetic. |
| spellingShingle | Alexandre Costa Reis BRITO Cintia Fernandes do COUTO Cresus Vinícius Depes de GOUVÊA Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada Composite resins Compomers Dental prosthetic. |
| title | Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins |
| title_full | Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins |
| title_short | Comparative Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of a Direct Composite Resin and Two Laboratorial Resins |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of the compressive strength of a direct composite resin and two laboratorial resins |
| topic | Composite resins Compomers Dental prosthetic. |
| url | http://Compositeresins;Compomers;Dentalprosthetic. |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexandrecostareisbrito comparativeevaluationofthecompressivestrengthofadirectcompositeresinandtwolaboratorialresins AT cintiafernandesdocouto comparativeevaluationofthecompressivestrengthofadirectcompositeresinandtwolaboratorialresins AT cresusviniciusdepesdegouvea comparativeevaluationofthecompressivestrengthofadirectcompositeresinandtwolaboratorialresins |