Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND SURFACE MICROHARDNESS BETWEEN FLOWABLE COMPOSITE RESIN AND GIOMER

유동성 자이오머와 복합 레진의 압축 강도 및 표면 미세 경도 비교

  • Kim, Jong-Soo (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 김종수 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실)
  • Received : 2012.10.24
  • Accepted : 2012.11.09
  • Published : 2012.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the compressive strength and the surface microhardness of Beautifil flow (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350, Z350XT (3M ESPE, USA). Fifteen specimens from each material were fabricated for testing. Compressive strength was measured by using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Surface microhardness values were measured by using Vickers hardness tester under 4.9 N load and 10 seconds dwelling time. The compressive strength of Group 2 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT shows the highest value as $218.7{\pm}18.4$ MPa and Group 1 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350 was $205.5{\pm}27.1$ MPa. Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was $176.5{\pm}30.3$ MPa, and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was $173.4{\pm}26.2$ MPa. The compressive strength of Group 2 is higher than Group 3 and 4 (p < 0.05). The surface microhardness of Group 2 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT shows the highest value as $39.1{\pm}2.1$ and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was $27.9{\pm}1.8$. And Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was $23.1{\pm}1.1$, Group 1 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350 was $20.4{\pm}0.9$. There was a statistical significant difference in surface microhardness between all groups (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the compressive strength of giomer was below the level of flowable composite resin. However, the surface microhardness of giomer is comparable to that of flowable composite resin. Giomer would be the good alternative to composite resin, if there is improvement of the compressive strength of giomer.

본 연구의 목적은 유동성 자이오머인 Beautifil flow와 유동성 복합레진인 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350, Z350XT의 압축강도와 표면 미세경도를 비교 평가하는 것이었다. 각각의 재료를 사용하여 15개의 시편을 제작하였다. 만능시험기를 사용하여 초 당 1 mm 횡단 속도 하에서 압축강도를 측정하였으며, 표면 미세경도는 보압 시간 10초 조건하에서 4.9 N의 힘을 가해 비커스 경도를 측정하였다. 압축 강도 측정 결과 2군인 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT는 $218.7{\pm}18.4$ MPa로 가장 높은 값을 보였고, 1군인 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350은 $205.5{\pm}27.1$ MPa로 나타났다. 3군인 Beautifil flow F00는 $176.5{\pm}30.3$ MPa이었으며, 4군인 Beautifil flow F10의 압축 강도는 $173.4{\pm}26.2$ MPa이었다. 2군이 3군과 4군에 대해 통계학적 유의차를 보였다(p < 0.05). 표면 미세 경도 측정값은 2군 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT가 $39.1{\pm}2.1$로 가장 높은 값을, 4군 Beautifil flow F10가 $27.9{\pm}1.8$으로 다음으로 높았고, 3군 Beautifil flow F00가 $23.1{\pm}1.1$, 1군 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350이 $20.4{\pm}0.9$로 측정되었다. 모든 군 간에 통계학적 유의차를 보였다(p < 0.05). 결론적으로, 유동성 자이오머의 압축강도는 복합레진에 비해 낮지만, 표면 미세경도는 비슷한 양상을 보였다. 자이오머의 압축 강도가 보완된다면 임상에서 복합 레진의 좋은 대체재로 사용될 수 있을 것으로 사료되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Shimokobe H, Komatsu H, Matsui I : Fluoride content in human enamel after removal of the applied glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res, 66:131, 1987.
  2. Kawai K, Yasunaga T, Torii M, et al. : Inhibition of extra cellular glucosyl transferase by elute from fluoride- releasing resin. Japan J Concerv Dent, 32: 1404-1411, 1989.
  3. Tay WM, Braden M : Fluoride ion diffusion from polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. Biomater, 9:454-456, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(88)90012-9
  4. Berg JH : The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry-a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent, 20:2 93-100, 1998.
  5. Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF : Fluoride release from glass-ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6-month data. J Dent, 26:355-359, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00016-X
  6. Roberts TA, Miyai K, Ikemura K, et al. : Fluoride ion sustained release preformed glass ionomer filler and dental compositions containing the same. United States Patent No.5883153, 1999.
  7. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, et al. : Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dental Materials, 20:789-795, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2003.11.009
  8. Dhull KS, Nandlal B : Comparative evaluation of fluoride release from PRG-composites and compomer on application of topical fluoride: An in-vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 27:27-32, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.50813
  9. Dhull KS, Nandlal B : Effect of low-concentration daily topical fluoride application on fluoride release of Giomer and Compomer: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 29: 39-45, 2011.
  10. Buonocore MG : A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res, 34: 849-853, 1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801
  11. Lien W, Vandewalle KS : Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dental materials 26:337-344, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.004
  12. Yap AU, Wang X, Wu X, Chung SM : Comparative hardness and modulus of tooth-colored restoratives: a depth-sensing microindentation study. Biomaterials, 25:2179-85, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.003
  13. Yoon M, Kim JS, Yoo SH : Changes of compressive strength and microhardness of composite resin, giomer and compomer after thermocycling treatment. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 37:438-444, 2010.
  14. Kim SM, Park HW, Lee JH et al. : Fluoride release and microhardness of gionomer according to time. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 37:429-437, 2010.
  15. Ikemura K, Kouro Y, Endo T : A new fluoride releasing dental adhesive and its bonding durability to teeth under long-term water-immersion. J Adhes Soc Jpn, 34: 85-97, 1998.
  16. Ikemura K, Shinno K, Fujii A, et al. : Two-year bonding durability of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Dent Res, 81:1131, 2002.

Cited by

  1. Microleakage and Anticariogenic Effect of S-PRG Filler-containing Pit and Fissure Sealant vol.40, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2013.40.4.247
  2. Fluoride Release and Compressive Strength of Several Giomers vol.43, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2016.43.3.292