Comparison of flexural strength and modulus of elasticity in several resinous teeth splinting materials

Abstract

Purpose: Direct splinting material should have high flexural strength to withstand force during mastication and low modulus of elasticity to provide some movement while force applied for relief of stress. The purpose of this study was to compare flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of several resinous splinting materials. Materials and Methods: Four materials; Super-Bond C&B, G-FIX, G-aenial Universal Flo, FiltekTM Z350 XT; were used in this study. Fifteen rectangular bar specimens of each material were prepared. Three-point bending test were performed to determine physical properties. Maximum load at fracture was recorded and flexural strength and modulus of elasticity were calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe's tests at a 0.05 level of significance were conducted on all test results. Results: Statistical analysis reveals that Super-Bond C&B had significant low mean value for flexible strength and the other three materials showed no significant difference. For modulus of elasticity, Super-Bond C&B exhibited statistically lower modulus of elasticity. G-FIX presented intermediate result, showing statistically higher modulus of elasticity than Super-Bond C&B but lower than G-aenial Universal Flo and FiltekTM Z350 XT. There was no significant difference on modulus of elasticity between G-aenial Universal Flo and FiltekTM Z350 XT. Conclusion: Using a G-FIX, the newly commercially available splinting material, which shows higher fracture resistance properties comparable to flowable and restorative composite resin and a relatively flexible nature might be a beneficial for stabilizing teeth mobility.

Space maintainer using CAD/CAM system without a band: a case report

“…G-fix is more resilient in physical properties than conventional composite resin, it withstands tooth fluctuations caused by chewing force and reduces the displacement of wire-shaped attachments such as fixed maintenance devices. 17 In this case, we used 0.4 mm thickness nitinol. This is because we wanted to use a commercialized product from the company that manufactures the retainer in the same way.…”