Summary
The use of indirect restorations have increased in tooth with great dental destruction due to their physical and mechanical properties that bestow higher durability than other type of restoration. The aim of the study was to compare the flexural resistance of four indirect restoration materials (composite Filtek P60; ceromers Adoro and Ceramage; ceramic IPS e.max), by testing the hypothesis that ceramic has a higher flexural resistance than ceromer and composite. Ten bars of each material were made following the 27, 53, 69 ANSI/ADA norms and the manufacturer’s instructions. The flexural resistance was obtained by a three-point test using the Instron machine at a loading rate of 1 mm/min. The resistance was calculated in MPa and the results were statistically analyzed through ANOVA y Scheffé tests. Filtek P60 flexural resistance is significantly higher than Ceramage. Adoro flexural resistance is significantly lower than all the other materials. It is necessary to make absolutely clear that the research was executed in vitro, whereby its resistances may differ than in mouth because of the cementation and the “mono-block” formation. Through the research it was determined that Filtek P60 is significantly higher than Ceramage, and that Adoro is significantly less than all the other compared materials regarding flexural resistance; whereby the raised hypothesis is nullified.
KEY WORDS: mechanical phenomena, permanent dental restoration, composite resins, ceramics, dental materials.
How to cite this article
MUÑOZ, F. I.; FLORIO, M. R. & VELÁSQUEZ, C. M. Flexural resistance of esthetic materials used by indirect restoration. A comparative in vitro study. Int. J. Odontostomat., 7(2):315-318, 2013.
