Author(s): Porto, Thiago [UNESP] ; Roperto, Renato ; Akkus, Anna ; Akkus, Ozan ; Porto-Neto, Sizenando [UNESP] ; Teich, Sorin ; Lang, Lisa ; Campos, Edson [UNESP]
Date: 2022
Persistent ID: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/232566
Origin: Oasisbr
Subject(s): CAD/CAM; Ceramic; Composite resin; Fracture toughness; Hybrid materials; CAD/CAM; CAD/CAM; Ceramic; Ceramic; Composite resin; Composite resin; Fracture toughness; Fracture toughness; Hybrid materials; Hybrid materials
Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T22:42:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-01-01
Background: This study compared two well-known computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufactured (CAD/ CAM) blocks (Paradigm MZ100 [3M ESPE] and Vitablocs Mark II [Vita] in terms of fracture toughness (Kic), index of brittleness (BI) and stress/strain distributions. Material and Methods: Three-point bending test was used to calculate the fracture toughness, and the relationship between the Kic and the Vickers hardness was used to calculate the index of brittleness. Additionally, digital image correlation (DIC) was used to analyze the stress/strain distribution on both materials. Results: The values for fracture toughness obtained under three-point bending were 1.87Pa√m (±0.69) for Paradigm MZ100 and 1.18Pa√m (±0.17) for Vitablocs Mark II. For the index of brittleness, the values for Paradigm and Vitablocs were 73.13μm-1/2 (±30.72) and 550.22μm-1/2 (±82.46). One-way ANOVA was performed to find differences (α=0.05) and detected deviation between the stress/strain distributions on both materials. Conclusions: Both CAD/CAM materials tested presented similar fracture toughness, but, different strain/stress distributions. Both materials may perform similarly when used in CAD/CAM restorations.
Department of Restorative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry Sao Paulo State University
Department of Comprehensive Care School of Dental Medicine Case Western Reserve University
Department of Restorative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry Sao Paulo State University
