Abstract

  Restoration of carious teeth is generally done with various restorative materials. Which include Metallic and Non-Metallic materials like Silver Amalgam, Light cured Composite resin, Glass ionomer cement etc. which partially fulfill the objectives of restoration. This invitro study was conducted to evaluate the fracture resistance of Silver Amalgam, Light cured Composite resin (Solare sculpt), and an Alkasite restorative material (Cention N). A total of 30 specimens, with 10 specimens in each of 3 groups were fabricated using Teflon coated stainless steel die with 8.5 mm diameter and 3 mm depth mold space. Group1 – Silver Amalgam, Group 2 – Light cured Composite resin, Group 3- Alkasite Restorative Material (Cention N). All Samples were tested for fracture resistance by a universal testing machine. The results obtained after fracture were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. The results shows significant difference between the 3 groups with Group 3 Alkasite restorative material exhibits the highest fracture resistance compared to the remaining groups.

Keywords: Amalgam; Composite; Alkasite; Universal Testing Machine; Fracture Resistance

References

1. Uday Kamath and Afna Salam. “Fracture resistance of maxillary premolar with mod cavities restored with Zirconomer: An invitro comparative study”. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 2 (2016): 77-80.
2. Chalissery VP and Marwah N. “Study of the Mechanical Properties of the Novel Zirconia- reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 5 (2016): 394-398.
3. Meenakumari C and Bhat KM. “Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Newer Nanoposterior Restorative Resin Composites: An In-vitro Study”. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 1 (2018): S142-S146.
4. Vandana Sadananda and Chitharanjan Shetty. “Alkasite Restorative Material: Flexural and Compressive Strength Evaluation”. 9.5 (2018): 0975-8585.
5. Indrajit Biswas and Raghunath Shil. “Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, dyract-xp composite resin and cention-n restoration in class I cavity”. International Journal of Innovative Research in Dental Sciences2 (2018).
6. Debolina Chowdhury., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Dental Amalgam, Z350 Composite Resin and Cention-N Restoration in Class II Cavity”. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences4 (2018): 52-56.
7. Sangwan B., et al. “An in vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with different restorative materials”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 7 (2016): 549-552.
8. Jagvinder Singh Mann and Sunakshisharma. “Cention N: A Review”. International Journal of Current Research05 (2018): 69111-69112.
9. Schenck L., et al. “A major breakthrough in the field of direct posterior composite resins - thanks to the combined use of Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill and Bluephase Style”. Special Feature DZW 11 (2011): 3-15.
10. Patel MU., et al. “An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer - a stereomicroscopic study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research7 (2015): ZC65-ZC67.
11. Emrullah Bahsi and Bayram Ince.“Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Amalgam and Composite in Abrasioned Teeth”. IBBJ Winter1 (2018).

Citation

Citation: M Swetha., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Silver Amalgam, Composite and Alkasite Restorative Material- An In vitroStudy”.Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.1 (2020): 85-90.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 M Swetha., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.