International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N with Conventionally used Restorative Materials—An In Vitro Study

Manish Agarwal, Gautam Singh, Rizwan Qureshi, Santosh K Singh, Abhishek Mishra, Nishant Khurana

Keywords : Amalgam, Cention N, Compressive strength, Flexural strength, Glass Ionomer Cement, Hybrid composite

Citation Information : Agarwal M, Singh G, Qureshi R, Singh SK, Mishra A, Khurana N. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N with Conventionally used Restorative Materials—An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 8 (4):120-124.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objective: This study compared the compressive strength and flexural strength of Centurion N with other conventionally used restorative materials. Materials and methods: Cention N, Amalgam, Glass Ionomer Cement and Hybrid composite resin was used for sample fabrication. A total of 80 specimens were prepared. Forty samples (n = 10 each) were prepared for compressive strength and other 40 samples (n = 10 each) were prepared for flexural strength using aluminum split molds. The samples were tested using a universal Instron testing machine (UTM). Data were statistically analyzed using the Games–Howell post hoc test to determine whether statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) existed among the various restorative materials. Results: Compressive strength and flexural strength of composites was significantly higher than cention N, GIC, and amalgam. Compressive strength of cention N was significantly higher than GIC. Flexural strength of cention N was found to be significantly higher than GIC and Amalgam. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that composite had the highest compressive strength and flexural strength of the four materials tested. However, cention N can be used in various restorative procedures in daily dental practice as a basic filling material along with tooth matching ability, it has good comparable mechanical properties and unlike composite, it\'s economical to patients.


PDF Share
  1. Deepika K, Hegde M, Hegde P, Bhandary S. An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(1):36-39.
  2. Sakaguchi R, Powers J. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials. 13th edition, Philadalphia
  3. Shivrayan A, Kumar G. Comparative study of mechanical properties of direct core build-up materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015;6(1):16-20.
  4. Yüzügüllü B, Çiftçi Y, Saygili G, Canay. Diametral tensile and compressive strengths of several types of core materials. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(2):102-107.
  5. Jayanthi N, Vinod V. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and flexural strength of conventional core materials with nanohybrid composite resin core material an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(3):281-289.
  6. Anusavice KJA. Harrison RH. Philips’ Science of Dental Materials 11th edition. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1992. p. 370-374.
  7. Affairs AC. Dental amalgam: Update on safety concerns. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 Apr 1;129(4):494-503.
  8. Parolia A, Adhauliya N, de Moraes Porto IC, Mala K. A comparative evaluation of microleakage around class V cavities restored with different tooth colored restorative materials. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014;13(1):120-126.
  9. Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Ishikiriama A, da Silva e Souza Júnior MH, Delazari RC. Bond strength between resin composite and etched and non-etched glass ionomer. Braz Dent J. 1997; 8(2):73-78.
  10. Cardoso M V, Yoshida Y, van Meerbeek B. Adhesion to tooth enamel and dentin – a view on the latest technology and future perspectives. Chapter 3 in: Roulet J-F, Kappert H F. Statements: Diagnostics and therapy in dental medicine today and in the future. 2009. Quintessence.
  11. Cention N retrieved from- http://www.ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/cention-n.
  12. Yamazaki T, Schricker SR, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Johnston W. Viscoelastic behavior and fracture toughness of six glass-ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(4): 266-272.
  13. Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Deutsch AS, Systems ED, Hackensack S. Fracture strengths of three core restorative materials supported with or without a prefabricated split-shank post. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(6):560-565.
  14. Gateau P, Sabek M, Dailey B. In vitro fatigue resistance of glass ionomer cements used in post-and-core applications. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(2):149-155.
  15. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(1):5-9.
  16. Shaini FJ, Fleming GJP, Shortall ACC, Marquis PM. A comparison of the mechanical properties of a gallium-based alloy with a spherical high-copper amalgam. Dent Mater. 2001;17(2):142-148.
  17. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:272–276.
  18. Agrawal A, Mala K. An in vitro comparative evaluation of physical properties of four different types of core materials. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(3):230-233.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.