Evaluation of Flexural and Compressive Strength for A Bioactive Restorative Material, Nanocomposite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer: A Comparative Study | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 8, Volume 65, Issue 4 - October (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), October 2019, Page 3637-3641 PDF (391.07 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2019.75987 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Tayseer Maaly 1; Salwa El Sayed2
| ||||
| 1Lecturer of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Zagazig University | ||||
| 2Lecturer of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Zagazig University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: To perform a comparison between ACTIVA BioACTIVE restorative, Nano-filled dental composite and RMGIC for compressive and flexural strength. Materials and methods: A total of 60 specimens were made of (ACTIVA Bioactive-, Filtek Z350XT and Ketac Nano-100 RMGI), thirty specimens were prepared for compressive strength testing and the other 30 specimens were prepared for flexural strength testing using two split Teflon molds with different dimensions. All specimens were kept in distilled water for 24 h, then they were tested by universal testing machine. Results: The Filtek Z350XT recorded the highest values for compressive and flexural strength, while the lowest values were for Ketac Nano-100. There was no statistically significant difference between compressive strength values of Filtek Z350XT and ACTIVA. While there were significant difference among flexural strength values for all the materials. Conclusion: ACTIVA demonstrates mechanical properties comparable to dental composite and superior to traditional RMGIC. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| ACTIVA; flexural strength; RMGIC; Compressive strength; Nano-filled composite | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 597 PDF Download: 681 |
||||
