2003•Journal of Oral RehabilitationRequires access

Comparison of flexural properties of composite restoratives using the ISO and mini‐flexural tests

Adrian Ujin Yap, Swee Hin Teoh

Open publisher page 151 citations

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to investigate the flexural properties (flexural strength and flexural modulus) of four commercial composite restoratives (Silux Plus, Z100, Ariston and Surefil) using the ISO 4049 flexural test (IFT) and a mini-flexural test (MFT). Both tests involved the use of three-point loading and the same fixture. The difference between the tests was in the length of the composites specimens and the distance between the supports [20 mm (IFT) and 10 mm (MFT)]. Six specimens were made for each material and flexural test. Test specimens [25 x 2 x 2 mm (IFT) and 12 x 2 x 2 mm (MFT)] were fabricated according to manufacturers' recommendations. After light-polymerization, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h. The specimens were subsequently blotted dry, measured and subjected to flexural testing using an Instron Universal Testing Machine with a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm min(-1). Data was analysed using anova/Scheffe's, paired samples test (P < 0.05) and Pearson's correlation (P < 0.01). For both IFT and MFT, results of statistical analysis of flexural strength were identical. Silux had significantly lower flexural strength compared with the other composites and the flexural strength of Ariston was significantly lower than Z100 and Surefil. For IFT, the flexural modulus of Z100 was significantly higher than Silux, Ariston and Surefil while for MFT, Silux had significantly lower modulus compared with Z100, Ariston and Surefil. A significant, strong and positive correlation (r = 0.95) was observed for flexural strength between IFT and MFT. Correlation for flexural modulus was also significant and positive but was weaker (r = 0.53). As MFT has the advantage of ease of specimen fabrication and is more clinically realistic, it is suggested for the testing of composite restoratives. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mini-flexural test may be better than the ISO flexural test for screening of composite restoratives for clinical applications.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to investigate the flexural properties (flexural strength and flexural modulus) of four commercial composite restoratives (Silux Plus, Z100, Ariston and Surefil) using the ISO 4049 flexural test (IFT) and a mini-flexural test (MFT). Both tests involved the use of three-point loading and the same fixture. The difference between the tests was in the length of the composites specimens and the distance between the supports [20 mm (IFT) and 10 mm (MFT)]. Six specimens were made for each material and flexural test. Test specimens [25 x 2 x 2 mm (IFT) and 12 x 2 x 2 mm (MFT)] were fabricated according to manufacturers' recommendations. After light-polymerization, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h. The specimens were subsequently blotted dry, measured and subjected to flexural testing using an Instron Universal Testing Machine with a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm min(-1). Data was analysed using anova/Scheffe's, paired samples test (P < 0.05) and Pearson's correlation (P < 0.01). For both IFT and MFT, results of statistical analysis of flexural strength were identical. Silux had significantly lower flexural strength compared with the other composites and the flexural strength of Ariston was significantly lower than Z100 and Surefil. For IFT, the flexural modulus of Z100 was significantly higher than Silux, Ariston and Surefil while for MFT, Silux had significantly lower modulus compared with Z100, Ariston and Surefil. A significant, strong and positive correlation (r = 0.95) was observed for flexural strength between IFT and MFT. Correlation for flexural modulus was also significant and positive but was weaker (r = 0.53). As MFT has the advantage of ease of specimen fabrication and is more clinically realistic, it is suggested for the testing of composite restoratives. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mini-flexural test may be better than the ISO flexural test for screening of composite restoratives for clinical applications.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 151 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to investigate the flexural properties (flexural strength and flexural modulus) of four commercial composite restoratives (Silux Plus, Z100, Ariston and Surefil) using the ISO 4049 flexural test (IFT) and a mini-flexural test (MFT). Both tests involved the use of three-point loading and the same fixture. The difference between the tests was in the length of the composites specimens and the distance between the supports [20 mm (IFT) and 10 mm (MFT)]. Six specimens were made for each material and flexural test. Test specimens [25 x 2 x 2 mm (IFT) and 12 x 2 x 2 mm (MFT)] were fabricated according to manufacturers' recommendations. After light-polymerization, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h. The specimens were subsequently blotted dry, measured and subjected to flexural testing using an Instron Universal Testing Machine with a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm min(-1). Data was analysed using anova/Scheffe's, paired samples test (P < 0.05) and Pearson's correlation (P < 0.01). For both IFT and MFT, results of statistical analysis of flexural strength were identical. Silux had significantly lower flexural strength compared with the other composites and the flexural strength of Ariston was significantly lower than Z100 and Surefil. For IFT, the flexural modulus of Z100 was significantly higher than Silux, Ariston and Surefil while for MFT, Silux had significantly lower modulus compared with Z100, Ariston and Surefil. A significant, strong and positive correlation (r = 0.95) was observed for flexural strength between IFT and MFT. Correlation for flexural modulus was also significant and positive but was weaker (r = 0.53). As MFT has the advantage of ease of specimen fabrication and is more clinically realistic, it is suggested for the testing of composite restoratives. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mini-flexural test may be better than the ISO flexural test for screening of composite restoratives for clinical applications.

Key concepts: Flexural strength, Crosshead, Flexural modulus, Three point flexural test, Composite material, Universal testing machine, Materials science, Composite number

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of flexural properties of composite restoratives using the ISO and mini‐flexural tests — Research Paper | ScholarLens