Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials.
Naz, Fariha; Samad Khan, Abdul; Kader, Mohammed Abdul; Al Gelban, Lamis Omar Saad; Mousa, Nada Mohammed Ali; Asiri, Raghad Saeed Hader; Hakeem, Abbas Saeed.
  • Naz F; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62521, Saudi Arabia.
  • Samad Khan A; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia.
  • Kader MA; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62521, Saudi Arabia.
  • Al Gelban LOS; College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62521, Saudi Arabia.
  • Mousa NMA; College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62521, Saudi Arabia.
  • Asiri RSH; College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62521, Saudi Arabia.
  • Hakeem AS; Center of Excellence in Nanotechnology, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Dent J ; 33(7): 666-673, 2021 Nov.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34803317
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The physical and mechanical performance of a newly commercialized dental restorative material (alkasite) was compared with glass ionomer cement (GIC) and nano-hybrid composite.

METHODOLOGY:

Human extracted premolars were used to investigate the shear bond strength. Restorative materials were placed on the dentine surface and were aged in deionized water for 14 days. The 3-D surface roughness was evaluated before and after chewing simulation cycles (50,000). The samples were fatigued mechanically using a chewing simulator and investigated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

RESULTS:

For shear bond strength, alkasite showed significantly high values than GIC, whereas non-significant difference was observed between alkasite and nano-hybrid composite. After the chewing simulation (50,000 cycles), non-significant difference was found between GIC and nano-hybrid composite, where surface roughness values were highest for GIC and lowest for alkasite.

CONCLUSION:

The newly developed restorative material (alkasite) has shown better results than existing restorative materials.
Palabras clave