Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1669
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 288-291
Evaluation and comparison of flexural strength of Cention N with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and composite – An in vitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, S D M College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission27-Dec-2021
Date of Decision31-Jan-2022
Date of Acceptance01-Feb-2022
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2022
 

   Abstract 

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the flexural strength of Cention N with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and nanohybrid composite.
Materials and Methods: Samples were prepared by filling the stainless steel mold of dimension 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm with cement/composite immediately after mixing. Excess flash if any was removed by abrading it with abrasive paper. Then, the specimens were subjected to flexural strength measurement using universal testing machine. The results were then tabulated and statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple post hoc test.
Results: The average flexural strength of NT Premium, Vitremer, and Cention N was 90.39 MPa, 46.59 MPa, and 62.88 MPa, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between NT Premium and Cention N and NT Premium and Vitremer with P = 0.0002 and 0.0001, respectively.
Significance: The flexural strength study can help us to choose a material for restoring Class V lesions and can also confirm whether Cention N, a new material, be a definite replacement for amalgam.
Conclusion: Cention N has proved to be a better material and can be a replacement for amagam and GIC.

Keywords: Cention N; flexural strength; three-point bend test

How to cite this article:
Hiremath G, Horati P, Naik B. Evaluation and comparison of flexural strength of Cention N with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and composite – An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2022;25:288-91

How to cite this URL:
Hiremath G, Horati P, Naik B. Evaluation and comparison of flexural strength of Cention N with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and composite – An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 4];25:288-91. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2022/25/3/288/347350

   Introduction Top


Dental caries is a major oral health problem, affecting 60%–90% of the population. Cavities affecting the cervical third of buccal and lingual surfaces of all teeth are known as Class V cavities, according to the classification devised by Sir G.V. Black. These lesions can be carious or noncarious. Studies have shown that the development of Class V lesions is multifactorial.[1],[2],[3] Hence, such lesions should be critically analyzed for the cause of lesion before planning the restorative treatment. A plethora of materials are available for restoration of Class V lesions such as glass ionomers, composites, amalgam, and compomer.

Conventionally, glass-ionomer cement (GIC) have been used in varied clinical applications. Their ability to bond physicochemically to both enamel and dentin,[4],[5] biocompatibility with the dental tissue,[6] fluoride ion release,[7],[8] and low thermal expansion coefficient, similar to that of tooth structure, have made it as a material of choice. Despite of these advantages, conventional glass ionomers have low fracture toughness and flexural strength[9],[10] and rough surface texture and opaqueness[11] and are susceptible to moisture. Hence, polymerizable glass-ionomer materials were developed. These photopolymerizable or resin-modified glass ionomers have the advantages of shorter setting time, reduced early moisture sensitivity, increased working time, and better mechanical properties than those of the conventional GIC.[12],[13]

Another material which is commonly used for restoration of Class V lesions is composite resin. Fillers have been added to the traditional composite resins to improve their esthetic and mechanical properties.[14],[15] Thus, microfilled composites, hybrid composites, and nanofilled composites were developed.

An innovative filling material “Cention N” is marketed recently offering tooth-colored esthetics with high flexural strength. Manufacturers claim that Cention N is intended for restoring deciduous teeth and for permanent restorations of a Class I, II, or V nature. Unfortunately, whatever the material is the failure rate of Class V restorations is comparatively high and common.[16]

Properties of materials, such as fracture resistance and elasticity under stress, are evaluated by the determination of properties of flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fracture toughness.[17] Furthermore, according to Prosser et al., the most appropriate measure of the strength of GIC is obtained with a flexural test.[18]

Hence, in this study, the flexural strength of Cention N will be evaluated and compared with resin-modified GIC and nanohybrid composite.


   Materials and Methods Top


The materials used in this study were resin-modified GIC – Vitremer (3M ESPE), composite resin – NT Premium (Coltene), and Cention N (Ivoclar). Samples were prepared by filling the stainless steel mold of dimension 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm with cement/composite immediately after mixing (n = 10). The mold was covered with a polyester film and glass plate on both sides. The material was then cured using Bluedent LED Smart (BG Light LTD) for 30 s. Excess flash if any was removed by abrading it with abrasive paper. The procedure for the preparation of the Cention N group was the same except that these group specimens were not subjected to light activation. Then, the specimens were subjected to flexural strength measurement using universal testing machine (ACME Engineers, India, Model No. UNITEST-10). The samples were tested at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until the specimen fractured. The flexure strength of each specimen was calculated using the formula 3FL/(2BH2)

Where F is the maximum load (in N), L: distance between the supports (in mm), B: width of the specimen (in mm), and H: height of the specimen (in mm).

The results were then tabulated and statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple post hoc test.


   Results Top


The mean flexure strength of Composite, resin-modified GIC, and Cention N was 90.39 MPa, 46.59 MPa, and 62.89MPa, respectively. One-way ANOVA test showed that there was a significant difference between the groups with P < 0.0001. Further, pairwise comparison of these materials using Tukey's multiple post hoc procedures revealed a significant difference between NT Premium and Cention N and NT Premium and Vitremer with P = 0.0002 and 0.0001, respectively.


   Discussion Top


The newer composite restorative materials have enormous benefits and strides toward minimally invasive dentistry. They may, however, be expensive, time-consuming, and technique sensitive. The need for appropriate traditional “basic” dental materials has not yet eliminated. Hence, amalgam and glass ionomers still remained popular under particular dental circumstances. A real alternative to amalgam or GIC – a cost-effective, fluoride-releasing product – was introduced into market recently by Ivoclar. This material Cention N is quick and easy to use without complicated equipment. According to manufacturer's Cention N has advantages of amalgam and GIC. Hence, in the present study, Cention N was compared with Vitremer (3M ESPE), a resin-modified GIC, and NT Premium (Coltene) for their flexural strength.

Furthermore, in the present study, the different materials used for Class V restoration were evaluated and compared.

Flexural strength is an appropriate mechanical property for brittle materials although the results cannot be similar to the materials' clinical behavior. Brittle dental materials like cement have a tensile strength markedly lower than the compressive strength. As commented by Prosser et al., the most appropriate measure of the strength of GIC is obtained with a flexural test.[18] Compressive strength is indirectly related to the shear and tensile failure. Furthermore, measurement of tensile strength by loading in diametral compression is only valid in the absence of significant plastic flow. Hence, in this study, the materials were subjected for the flexural strength.

The study utilized the in vitro three-point bending flexural test as recommended by the ISO 4049/20008 specification.[19],[20] The three-point bending test was used due to the lower standard deviation, the lower coefficient of variation when compared to those produced by other test designs, such as the biaxial flexural test.[19]

In the present study, the average flexural strength of NT Premium, Vitremer, and Cention N was 90.39 MPa, 46.59 MPa, and 62.88Mpa, respectively [Table 1]. When statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA test, there was a significant difference between the groups with P < 0.0001 [Table 2]. Further, pairwise comparison of these materials was performed using Tukey's multiple post hoc procedures. There was a statistically significant difference between NT Premium and Cention N and NT Premium and Vitremer with P = 0.0002 and 0.0001, respectively [Table 3]. The comparison of the materials in their flexural strength is depicted in [Figure 1].
Table 1: Summary of flexural strength (MPa) in three materials

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of three materials with respect to flexural strength (MPa) by one-way ANOVA test

Click here to view
Table 3: Pair wise comparison of three materials with respect to flexural strength (MPa) by Tukeys multiple posthoc procedures

Click here to view
Figure 1: Comparison of three materials with respect to flexural strength (MPa)

Click here to view


The results obtained in this study are in comparison with other studies where composite has higher flexure strength than GIC.[21],[22]

Vitremer, a resin-modified GIC, consists of fluoroaluminosilicate glass, micro-encapsulated potassium persulfate, and ascorbic acid which make up the patented redox catalyst system that provides the methacrylate cure of the glass ionomer in the absence of light. The liquid consists of a light-sensitive, aqueous solution of a polycarboxylic acid modified with pendant methacrylate groups. It also contains water, HEMA, and photoinitiators. The specimens were cured from one side, hence the possibility of incomplete conversion of the resin component. This is supported by improvement in strength when the specimens were cured on two opposing surfaces.[23]

NT Premium, a nanohybrid composite, consists of Bis-GMA which is an aromatic ester of a dimethacrylate, synthesized from an epoxy resin and methyl methacrylate; thus, it is rigid yet presents high viscosity.[24] In addition, the matrix consists modified urethane (Bis-EMA) which reduces the polymerization shrinkage and the intrinsic stresses of the material. However, the presence of TEGDMA in composition has been associated to decrease the flexural strength of the material.[25] Although TEGDMA creates a dense and flexible network, the mechanical property of a material is a result from a complex combination of microstructural and compositional factors. Hence, in this study, NT Premium has proved better than the other two materials.

Cention N is an “alkasite” restorative material which, like compomer or ormocer materials, is essentially a subgroup of the composite material class. It consists a combination of UDMA, DCP, an aromatic aliphatic-UDMA, and PEG-400 DMA interconnects (cross-links) during polymerization resulting in strong mechanical properties and good long-term stability. UDMA is the main component of the monomer matrix which exhibits moderate viscosity and yields strong mechanical properties. The inorganic filler barium-aluminum-silicate glass imparts strength to the material.[26] In the present study, light curing of the material was not done.

All the materials used in this study are intended to use for restorations of Class V cavities. As stipulated by ISO standard 4049 for polymer-based restorative materials, the flexural strength for Class II materials has to be a minimum of 50 MPa and 80 MPa for Class I materials.[27]

As mentioned by the ISO Standards, all the materials tested satisfy the standards to greater extent. Cention N and Vitremer have a flexural strength <80 MPA and hence are used in restorations of Class V cavities. NT Premium has higher flexure strength and is intended to be used in Class I restorations.

Hence, within the limitations of the study, all the materials definitely can be used as Class V restorative materials. Further studies need to be done to correlate these materials with clinical conditions.


   Conclusion Top


New material Cention N is a material comparable with composite and resin-modified GIC for Class V restorations. Further clinical studies for its longevity need to be carried out to prove as an alternative material for composite and glass ionomers.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Bader JD, McClure F, Scurria MS, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Case-control study of non-carious cervical lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996;24:286-91.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Pintado MR, Delong R, Ko CC, Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH. Correlation of non-carious cervical lesion size and occlusal wear in a single adult over a 14-year time span. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:436-43.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Khan F, Young WG, Shahabi S, Daley TJ. Dental cervical lesions associated with occlusal erosion and attrition. Aust Dent J 1999;44:176-86.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mount GJ. Clinical placement of modern glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1993;24:99-107.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hotz P, McLean JW, Sced I, Wilson AD. The bonding of glass ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br Dent J 1977;142:41-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mason PN, Ferrari M. In vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cement adhesion to dentin. Quintessence Int 1994;25:499-504.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark HE. Long-term F release from glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984;63:158-60.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Walls AW. Glass polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements: A review. J Dent 1986;14:231-46.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
McCabe JF, Jones PA, Wilson HJ. Some properties of a glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1979;146:279-81.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Goldman M. Fracture properties of composite and glass ionomer dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985;19:771-83.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Crim GA. Marginal leakage of visible light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:561-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Rusz JE, Antonucci JM, Eichmiller F, Anderson MH. Adhesive properties of modified glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1992;8:31-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Croll TP. Light-hardened class I glass ionomer – Resin cement restoration of a permanent molar. Quintessence Int 1993;25:109-13.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J 2011;56 Suppl 1:59-66.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Göhring TN, Gallo L, Lüthy H. Effect of water storage, thermocycling, the incorporation and site of placement of glass-fibers on the flexural strength of veneering composite. Dent Mater 2005;21:761-72.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Perez CR. Alternative technique for class V resin composite restorations with minimum finishing/polishing procedures. Oper Dent 2010;35:375-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000;16:33-40.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Prosser HJ, Powis DR, Wilson AD. Glass-ionomer cements of improved flexural strength. J Dent Res 1986;65:146-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Chung SM, Yap AU, Chandra SP, Lim CT. Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: Comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004;71:278-83.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Marquis PM. The reliability of standardized flexure strength testing procedures for a light-activated resin-based composite. Dent Mater 2005;21:911-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Lauer HC, Büchler A. Laboratory strength of glass ionomer cement, compomers, and resin composites. J Prosthodont 2002;11:86-91.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Jayanthi N, Vinod V. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and flexural strength of conventional core materials with nanohybrid composite resin core material an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:281-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kanchanavasita W, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. Long-term flexural strengths of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1998;19:1703-13.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Della Bona A, Benetti P, Borba M, Cecchetti D. Flexural and diametral tensile strength of composite resins. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:84-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Rodrigues Junior SA, Zanchi CH, Carvalho RV, Demarco FF. Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different types of resin-based composites. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:16-21.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Cention N Scientific Documentation. Available from: http://www.ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/cention-n. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 30].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
International Organization for standarization. Resin-based dental filling Materials (Class B).1SO 4049, 988.  Back to cited text no. 27
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Geeta Hiremath
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, S D M College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Dharwad, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_627_21

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed256    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded24    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal