Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorKim, Heyongil
dc.contributor.authorAlzahrani, Abdulrahman
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-26T02:57:07Z
dc.date.available2018-10-26T02:57:07Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.submitted2018-08-10 14:06:59
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10477/78630
dc.descriptionM.S.
dc.description.abstractAim: To measure and compare flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and hardness of some of the commercially available CAD/CAM and conventional materials used to fabricate interim fixed dental prostheses.Hypotheses: The null hypotheses are: 1-There is no statistical significant deference in the flexural strength among any of the tested materials. 2-There is no statistical significant deference in the modulus of elasticity among any of the tested materials. 3-There is no statistical significant deference in the hardness among any of the tested materials.Materials and methods: The preparation and testing was carried out in University at Buffalo, School of Dental medicine and Ivoclar Vivadet R&D lab (Amherst, NY, USA) as MS in Oral Sciences thesis projectMaterial included in the study were Integrity (Dentsply Caulk), Telio CAD, Telio Lab (Ivoclar Vivadent), Jet (Lang Dental) and Tuff Temp (Pulpdent).For flexural strength and modulus of elasticity, 10 specimens (2+0.1 mm) x (2+0.1mm) x (25+1.0 mm) and A3 shade (ISO 4049:2009) prepared and subjected to 3 unit bending test until fracture. ANOVA and multiple comparisons done.For hardness, rectangular cube specimens were indented 15 times using Vickers hardness testing machine. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was done.Results: for flexural strength Integrity and Telio CAD were significantly higher than Telio Lab, Jet and Tuff Temp (p<0.05). Telio Lab was significantly higher than Jet and Tuff Temp (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant deference in the flexural strength between Telio CAD and Integrity (p=0.993) and between Jet and Tuff Temp (p=0.710).For modulus of elasticity Integrity was significantly higher than all other groups (p<0.05). Telio CAD was significantly higher than Jet and Tuff Temp (p<0.05). Telio Lab was significantly higher than Jet (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant differences between Telio Lab and Telio CAD (p=0.5), between Telio Lab and Tuff Temp (p=0.318), and between Jet and Tuff Temp (p=0.873).For hardness Jet was significantly lower than all other groups (P>0.05). Integrity was significantly higher than all other groups (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among Telio Lab, Telio CAD and Tuff Temp with (p=1) in all comparisons. Conclusions: Integrity scored the highest flexural strength, highest modulus of elasticity, and hardness. The order from highest to lowest flexural strength is: Integrity > Telio CAD > Telio Lab > Jet > Tuff Temp. The order from highest to lowest modulus of elasticity is: Integrity > Telio CAD > Telio Lab > Tuff Temp > Jet. The order from highest to lowest hardness is: Integrity >Telio CAD > Tuff Temp > Telio Lab > Jet.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherState University of New York at Buffalo
dc.rightsUsers of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.
dc.subjectDentistry
dc.titleMechanical Properties of Selected CAD/CAM and Conventional Interim Fixed Restorative Materials
dc.typeThesis
dc.typeText
dc.rights.holderCopyright retained by author.
dc.contributor.departmentOral Sciences


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record