Compressive strength and compressive fatigue limit of conventional and high viscosity posterior resin composites.
The purpose of this study was to compare the compressive strengths and compressive fatigue limits of three posterior composite resins (Filtek P-60, Surefil and Prodigy Condensable) and a universal restorative composite (Z-100). Cylindrical specimens (8 mm in length x 4 mm in diameter) were used. The dynamic test was performed using the staircase method, and the ratio between compressive fatigue limit and compressive resistance was also calculated (n = 15). The compressive strength and compressive fatigue limit data were analyzed by Anova and Tukeys test. The Z-100 composite demonstrated higher compression strength (307.20 MPa) than Surefil (266.93 MPa) and Prodigy Condensable (222.08 MPa). The resistance of Filtek P-60 (270.44 MPa) was similar to the resistances of Z-100 and Surefil, while Prodigy Condensable presented the lowest compressive strength. In the compressive fatigue limit tests, Filtek P-60 demonstrated a higher value (184.20 MPa) than Prodigy Condensable (155.50 MPa). Surefil (165.74 MPa) and Z-100 (161.22 MPa) presented limits similar to those of Filtek P-60 and Prodigy Condensable. The compressive fatigue limit/compressive strength ratio was 70.01% for Prodigy Condensable, 68.11% for Filtek P-60, 62.09% for Surefil and 52.48% for Z-100. It was concluded that the Z-100 universal composite was more sensitive to the dynamic test than the high viscosity materials.
Brandão
Letícia
L
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria.
Adabo
Gelson Luis
GL
Vaz
Luís Geraldo
LG
Saad
José Roberto Cury
JR
D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D019245:Compressive Strength; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D008422:Materials Testing; D013718:Tensile Strength; D014783:Viscosity
D003188:Composite Resins