Title: Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of different packable composites with different cavity configurations – An in Vitro Study
Authors: Humanaz Shaikh, Sameer Jadhav, Vivek Hegde, Mohammad Naved
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v8i12.03
Abstract
Background: The application of excessive force on a material results in fracture of material which may be complete or incomplete. Resistance to fracture is an important property of a material. It would depend on its composition and also on the cavity configuration in which it is being placed. The cavity configuration plays an important role in the durability of the restored material. The preparation also maximizes or minimizes the bondable enamel surface area. Restoring the tooth with appropriate material is also an important aspect as its long-term performance depends on the physical and mechanical properties. It is determined by its compressive properties and the composition.
Short running title: Effect of cavity preparations on the strength of different composites
Aim: To evaluate the effect of the different cavity preparations on the strength of different composites as a restorative material.
Methodology: Clark’s Class II and Class II box only cavities were prepared on the distal surface of all mandibular molars of permanent dentition and were restored with two different packable composite, Filtek Z350 (3M/ESPE, Maplewood, USA), a nanofilled type of composite & Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), a nanohybrid type. Compressive strengths of both cavities and materials were measured using the computer control universal testing machine. The data was statistically analysed using one way anova.
Results: Results were subjected to statistical analysis one-way analysis of variance test and Student’s Unpaired t-test. The compressive strength was highest for Clarks Class II cavity preparation as compared to the conventional class II box only cavity preparation. The Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) showed the highest compressive strength than FiltekZ350 (3M/ESPE)
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded Clarks Class II cavity preparation and Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) has highest compressive strength.
Clinical Significance: Cavity preparation in which the margins of the proximal preparations extend into enamel and make the tooth more resistant to fracture and also increasing durability of restoration. Dental composites cause Polymerization shrinkage leads to micro leakage and thus creating gaps at the dentin or restoration interface and increase chances of fracture.
Keywords: Clark’s class II cavity, Class II box only, composites, compressive strength, fracture resistance, nanofilled composite.
