journal article·2010Open access

Investigations in the correlation between Martens hardness and flexural strength of composite resin restorative materials

Jens FISCHER, Svenja ROESKE, Bogna STAWARCZYK, Christoph H. F. HÄMMERLE

Dental Materials Journal· Volume 29· Issue 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to verify the hypothesis that the hardness and flexural strength of composite resin restorative materials are correlated and similarly affected by accelerated aging. With four different composite resins (Tetric Evo Ceram, Synergy, Filtek Supreme, Quixfil), the effects of aging in distilled water at 37 degrees C or by thermal cycling (5 degrees C/55 degrees C) on Martens hardness and flexural strength were assessed. Flexural strength (n=12) was measured according to ISO 4049 immediately after light-curing and after 75 days of aging. Martens hardness (n=6) was measured in intervals up to 75 days. The results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA, followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test. In all cases, the effect of aging on hardness could not be measured. The effect of aging on flexural strength was also not consistent, although it was found that thermal cycling affected flexural strength more than water storage. Martens hardness and flexural strength of composite resins are not correlated.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Building materials and conservation · Conservation Techniques and Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (13)

Show source-provided references
1. 1) Ergücü Z, Turkun LS. Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 209-216.
2. 2) Roulet JF, Vanherle G. Adhesive technology for restorative dentistry, Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., Hanover Park, IL, 2006.
3. 3) Spreafico R. Direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth, Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., Hanover Park, IL, 2007.
4. 4) Soderholm KJ. Dental adhesives … how it all started and later evolved. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9 Suppl 2: 227-230.
5. 5) Walker MP, Haj-Ali R, Wang Y, Hunziker D, Williams KB. Influence of environmental conditions on dental composite flexural properties. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 1002-1007.10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.023 ↗
6. 6) International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049:2000. Dentistry: Polymer based filling, restorative and luting materials, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
7. 7) Curtis AR, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, Palin WM. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resin-based composite. J Dent 2008; 36: 186-193.10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.015 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.dental.2005.01.01310.1016/j.dental.2005.01.013 ↗
9. 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00003-410.1016/S0109-5641(03)00003-4 ↗
10. 10) de Moraes RR, Marimon JL, Schneider LF, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bueno M. Effects of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prosthodont. 2008; 17: 323-326.10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00295.x ↗
11. 11) Mayworm CD, Camargo SS Jr, Bastian FL. Influence of artificial saliva on abrasive wear and microhardness of dental composites filled with nanoparticles. J Dent 2008; 36: 703-710.10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.001 ↗
12. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19981205)42:3<465::AID-JBM17>3.3.CO;2-T10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19981205)42:3<465::AID-JBM17>3.3.CO;2-T ↗
13. 13) JL Drummond. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 710-719.10.1177/154405910808700802 ↗