• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Reviewers
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Egyptian Dental Journal
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 68 (2022)
Volume Volume 67 (2021)
Issue Issue 4
October (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry)
Issue Issue 4
October (Oral Surgery)
Issue Issue 4
October (Oral Medicine, X-Ray, Oral Biology & Oral Pathology)
Issue Issue 4
October (Fixed Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials)
Issue Issue 4
October (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics)
Issue Issue 3
July (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry)
Issue Issue 3
July (Oral Surgery)
Issue Issue 3
July (Oral Medicine, X-Ray, Oral Biology & Oral Pathology)
Issue Issue 3
July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials)
Issue Issue 3
July (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics)
Issue Issue 2
April (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry)
Issue Issue 2
April (Oral Surgery)
Issue Issue 2
April (Oral Medicine, X-Ray, Oral Biology & Oral Pathology)
Issue Issue 2
April (Fixed Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials)
Issue Issue 2
April (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics)
Issue Issue 1 - January (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry)
Issue Issue 1 - January (Oral Surgery)
Issue Issue 1 - January (Oral Medicine, X-Ray, Oral Biology & Oral Pathology)
Issue Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials)
Issue Issue 1 - January (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics)
Volume Volume 66 (2020)
Volume Volume 65 (2019)
Volume Volume 64 (2018)
Volume Volume 63 (2017)
Volume Volume 62 (2016)
Safy, R., Aboalazm, E. (2021). Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement. Egyptian Dental Journal, 67(2), 1657-1662. doi: 10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356
Rehab Safy; Emad Aboalazm. "Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement". Egyptian Dental Journal, 67, 2, 2021, 1657-1662. doi: 10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356
Safy, R., Aboalazm, E. (2021). 'Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement', Egyptian Dental Journal, 67(2), pp. 1657-1662. doi: 10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356
Safy, R., Aboalazm, E. Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement. Egyptian Dental Journal, 2021; 67(2): 1657-1662. doi: 10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356

Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Cention N, Bulk Fill Resin Composite and Glass Ionomer Cement

Article 7, Volume 67, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5, April 2021, Page 1657-1662  XML PDF (400.88 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.50807.1356
Authors
Rehab Safy email 1; Emad Aboalazm2
1Associate Professor, Restorative Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Egypt
2Associate Professor, Restorative Dentistry, Egyptian Russian University, Egypt
Abstract
Objective: Evaluation of microhardness and compressive strength of Cention N in comparison to nanohybrid bulk fill resin composite and glass ionomer cement (GIC).
Methodology: A total of 30 specimens were prepared for microhardness evaluation, divided into three key groups of ten specimens each depending on the type of bulk fill restorative material used; Cention N, Tetric Evo Ceram bulk fill resin composite and Fuji IX GP groups. Specimens were prepared using a specially constructed 4 mm thickness cylindrical Teflon mold with a diameter of 6 mm. All specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours then subjected for Vickers microhardness tester. Assessment of compressive strength of the tested restorative materials necessitates fabrication of 30 specimens with a diameter of 3mm and 6mm thickness (ten specimens each). Universal testing machine was used for evaluation of compressive strength of all tested materials. Results obtained were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (P values of 0.05).
Results: Both microhardness and compressive strength tests results showed that there was no significant difference between Tetric EVO Ceram and Cention N (p < 0.001), meanwhile both of them are significantly higher than Fugi IX GP.
Conclusions: Under the limitation of the current study, the bioactive composite Cention N is a promising bulk fill resin composite restoration in the posterior region in terms of tested mechanical properties.
Key words: Cention N, bulk fill resin composite, GIC, microhardness, compressive strength.
Keywords
Cention N; bulk fill; GIC; microhardness; compressive strength
Statistics
Article View: 378
PDF Download: 380
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.