Yap Adrian U J, Chung S M, Chow W S, Tsai K T, Lim C T
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Oper Dent. 2004 Jan-Feb;29(1):29-34.
This study evaluated and compared the fracture toughness of compomers and composites. Three compomer (Compoglass F [CG], Vivadent; F2000 [FT], 3M-ESPE; Dyract Posterior [DP], Dentsply) and three composite (Tetric Ceram [TC], Vivadent; Z250 [ZT], 3M-ESPE; Esthet X [EX], Dentsply) restoratives were selected for the study. Single-edged notched specimens (25 x 2 x 2 mm) were fabricated according to manufacturers' instructions and conditioned in distilled water at 37 degrees C for one week prior to testing. Seven specimens were made for each material. The specimens were loaded to failure using an Instron microtester with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data were subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Independent Samples T-test at significance level 0.05. The mean fracture toughness (K(IC)) ranged from 0.97 to 1.23 MPam 1/2 for compomers and 1.75 to 1.92 MPam 1/2 for composites. The fracture toughness of compomers was significantly lower than their composite counterparts. No significant difference in K(IC) values was observed among the different composites. When the compomers were compared, FT had significantly higher fracture toughness than DP and CG. In view of their poorer resistance to crack propagation, compomers are not recommended for use in stress-bearing areas.
本研究评估并比较了复合体和复合树脂的断裂韧性。选择了三种复合体(Compoglass F [CG],Vivadent公司生产;F2000 [FT],3M-ESPE公司生产;Dyract Posterior [DP],登士柏公司生产)和三种复合树脂(Tetric Ceram [TC],Vivadent公司生产;Z250 [ZT],3M-ESPE公司生产;Esthet X [EX],登士柏公司生产)修复材料用于该研究。按照制造商的说明制作单边切口试样(25×2×2毫米),并在测试前于37℃蒸馏水中浸泡一周进行预处理。每种材料制作七个试样。使用Instron微型测试机以0.5毫米/分钟的十字头速度加载试样直至破坏。数据进行ANOVA/Scheffe检验和独立样本T检验,显著性水平为0.05。复合体的平均断裂韧性(K(IC))范围为0.97至1.23 MPam 1/2,复合树脂的范围为1.75至1.92 MPam 1/2。复合体的断裂韧性显著低于其对应的复合树脂。不同复合树脂之间未观察到K(IC)值有显著差异。当比较复合体时,FT的断裂韧性显著高于DP和CG。鉴于其抗裂纹扩展能力较差,不建议在受力区域使用复合体。