|
KMID : 0358920120390040383
|
|
Journal of the Korean Academy of Pedodontics
2012 Volume.39 No. 4 p.383 ~ p.388
|
|
|
COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND SURFACE MICROHARDNESS BETWEEN FLOWABLE COMPOSITE RESIN AND GIOMER
|
|
Kim Jong-Soo
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
The aim of this study was to compare the compressive strength and the surface microhardness of Beautifil flow (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with FiltekTM 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 FiltekTM Z350XT shows the highest value as 218.7 ± 18.4 MPa and Group 1 FiltekTM Z350 was 205.5 ± 27.1 MPa. Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was 176.5 ± 30.3 MPa, and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was 173.4 ± 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 FiltekTM Z350XT shows the highest value as 39.1 ± 2.1 and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was 27.9 ± 1.8. And Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was 23.1 ± 1.1, Group 1 FiltekTM Z350 was 20.4 ± 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Giomer, Compressive strength, Microhardness, Composite resin
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|