PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the fracture toughness of several core materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five core build-up materials were tested: (1) glass ionomer, (2) resin-modified glass ionomer, (3) titanium-reinforced composite, (4) composite resin with fluoride, and (5) amalgam. Fracture toughness determinations were made using 3-point flexure of beams with a central single-edge notch. The notch was standardized by the use of a special mold into which each of the materials was condensed. Ten beams of each material were tested on an Instron test machine (Instron Corp, Canton, MA) at a crosshead speed of 1.25 mm/min. The maximum loads were determined from which the fracture toughness values (KIC) were calculated. The data were analyzed statistically using analysis of variance and t tests. RESULTS: The mean fracture toughness value in MN.m-3/2 for each of them is as follows: (1) glass ionomer, 0.717 +/- 0.071; (2) resin-modified glass ionomer, 0.747 +/- 0.061; (3) titanium-reinforced composite, 1.409 +/- 0.051; (4) composite resin with fluoride, 1.660 +/- 0.086; and (5) amalgam, 1.521 +/- 0.081. There was no significant difference in the KIC values for the glass ionomer-based materials, and both of these were significantly lower than amalgam, titanium-reinforced composite resin, and composite resin with fluoride (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The titanium-reinforced composite resin, the composite resin with fluoride, and amalgam materials showed fracture toughness most likely to withstand the stresses generated during mastication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonilla et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: