Abstract
Recently, a second generation composite resin system(ceromer) was introduced with significantly improved mechanical properties. The purpose of this study was to compare a ceromer with the other restorative materials and to assess its clinical usefulness. In this study, we used four restorative materials : amalgam (BESTALOY$^{(R)}$), indirect composite resin (Clearfil CR Inlay$^{(R)}$), ceromer (Targis$^{(R)}$) and ceramic (Vintage$^{(R)}$). And then we devided into four groups. The materials of each group were as follows : Amalgam group : BESTALOY$^{(R)}$ (Dong Myung Dental Industrial Co.) Composite Resin group : Clearfil CR Inlay$^{(R)}$ (Kuraray) Ceromer group : Targis$^{(R)}$ Dentin (Ivoclar-Vivadent) Ceramic group : Vintage$^{(R)}$ (Shofu Inc.) According to the above classification, we made samples through the polymerization of BESTALOY$^{(R)}$, Clearfil CR Inlay$^{(R)}$ and Targis$^{(R)}$ with separable cylindrical metal mold and firing of Vintage$^{(R)}$ in a investment mold. And then, we measured and compared the value of compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and Vicker's microhardness of each sample. The results were as follows : 1. Amalgam showed the highest value of compressive strength (390.37${\pm}$42.22MPa) and the value of ceromer was somewhere between ceramic and indirect composite resin. There were significant differences among the experimental groups(p<0.001). 2. Indirect composite resin showed the highest value of diametral tensile strength (74.21${\pm}$15.33MPa) and there was no significant difference with ceromer. Ceromer was higher diametral tensile strength than amalgam and ceramic (p<0.001). 3. Ceramic showed the highest value of microhardness (538.44${\pm}$37.38Hv) and the value of ceromer was somewhere between ceramic and indirect composite resin. There were significant differences among the experimental groups (p<0.001).