• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.383-388
• /
• 2012

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.