The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Flexural Strength of Four Different Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study

Prashant Nakade, Sonam Thaore, Bhushan Bangar, Ishita Grover, Naji Alharethi, Girija Adsure, Dinraj Kulkarni

Keywords : Core build-up, Flexural strength, Fracture toughness

Citation Information : Nakade P, Thaore S, Bangar B, Grover I, Alharethi N, Adsure G, Kulkarni D. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Flexural Strength of Four Different Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (2):191-195.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3624

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture toughness and flexural strength of four different core build-up materials. Materials and methods: A total of 60 samples were divided into four groups (n = 15) group I: dual cure composite resin reinforced with zirconia particles (Luxacore Z), group II: light cure composite resin (Lumiglass DeepCure), group III: zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Zirconomer Improved), and group IV: chemically cure composite resin (Self Comp) respectively. All the core build-up materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and poured into the mold. A universal testing machine applied a central load to the specimen in a 3-point bending mode. Fracture of the specimen was identified and the reading was recorded by the universal testing machine. The data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and then compared. Results: Group I showed the highest flexural strength (48.65 MPa) among all the groups while group IV showed the lowest flexural strength (17.90 MPa). Group I showed the highest fracture toughness (99.12 MPa) among all the groups while group IV showed the lowest fracture toughness (36.41−0.5). When mean flexural strength and fracture toughness values of all four groups were compared by using one-way ANOVA, the compared data was highly significant. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, dual cure composite resin was the material of choice in terms of flexural strength and fracture toughness for core build-up material followed by light cure composite resin. Clinical significance: The core buildup material serves to strengthen the tooth structure, allowing it to withstand the forces of chewing and preventing the risk of tooth fractures. This material is essential in restoring damaged or decayed teeth, as it provides a stable foundation for further dental work. By reinforcing the tooth structure, the core buildup material ensures that the tooth can function properly and remain healthy for years to come.

PDF Share
  1. Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Lauer HC, et al. Laboratory strength of glass ionomer cements, compomers, and resin composites. J Prosthodont 2002;11:86–91. PMID: 12087545.
  2. Feranndes A, Rodngues S, Sardessai G, et al. Retension of endodontic post: A review. Endodontology 2001;13:11–18. DOI: 10.4103/0970-7212.351795.
  3. Maulana TI. Grindability analysis of dental core build-up materials under clinically relevant test procedure. J Med Mater Technol 2017;1(1):1–21. DOI: 10.17441/medmat.v1i1.12.
  4. Jotkowitz A, Samet N. Rethinking ferrule: A new approach to an old dilemma. Br Dent J 2010;209(1):25–33. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.580.
  5. Miannay D. Standard test method for plane-strain fracture toughness for metallic materials. Standard E399-90 ASTM. In: 1990 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM; 1990,13–15.
  6. Annusavice KJ. Phillips’ Sciences of Dental Materials, 11th edition. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2004.
  7. Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF. Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(4):584–590. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90370-p.
  8. Kumar G, Shivrayan A. Comparative study of mechanical properties of direct core build up materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(1):16–20. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.149285.
  9. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, et al. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Porsthet Dent 1999;82(3):272–276. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70079-x.
  10. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of various core build-up materials. J Prosthet Dent 2000;9(1):14–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00014.x.
  11. Capp NJ, Warren K. An advantage of the direct post and core technique. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(4):712–713. DOI: 0.1016/0022-3913(92)90393-o.
  12. Agrawal A, Mala K. An in vitro comparative evaluation of physical properties of four different types of core materials. J Cons Dent 2014;17(3):230–233. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.131782.
  13. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(10):1382–1390. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054.
  14. Kumar L, Pal B, Pujari P. An assessment of fracture resistance of three composite resin core build-up materials on three prefabricated non-metallic posts, cemented in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. Peer J 2015;3:e793. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.795.
  15. Steven G, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, et al. In vitro evaluation of five core materials. J Prosthodont 2007;16(1):25–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00149.x.
  16. Lloyd CH, Butchart D, The retention of core composites, glass ionomers, and cermets by a self-threading dentin pin: The influence of fracture toughness upon failure. Dent Mater 1990;6(3):185–188. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(90)90027-c.
  17. Goldman M. Fracture properties of composite and glass ionomer dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985;19(7):771–783. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820190705.
  18. Shah P, Gugwad SC, Bhat C, et al. Effect of three different core materials on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated deciduous mandibular second molars: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):66–70. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals- 10024-1097.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.