Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Resin composites for foundation restorations.

¹Department of Biologic and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Dentistry, Memphis, USA.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association

|March 22, 2000

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Mechanical profiles of condensable resin composites.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2002

Same author

Accelerated color change in a maxillofacial elastomer with and without pigmentation.

The Journal of prosthetic dentistry·2001

Same author

Periodic evaluation of the occlusal vertical dimension of maxillary dentures from the wax trial denture through 48 hours after polymerization.

Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists·2001

Same author

Compressive properties of chemically cured, resin modified glass ionomer luting cements.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·1998

Same author

Wear of visible light-cured restorative materials and removable partial denture direct retainers.

Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists·1997

Same author

The effect of etchant and cement age on the adhesion of resin composite to conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements.

Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)·1996

Same journal

Admissions at the University of Tennessee College of Dentistry Part 1: Trend in Applications 1977-2015.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

Same journal

A Novel Protocol to Evaluate Hard and Soft Tissue Relationships in Three Dimensions without the Use of Additional Radiographic Studies.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

Same journal

Tennessee Dental Establishments: 2007-2012 Economic Survey.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

Same journal

Provisional Replacement of Anterior Teeth: A Review of Clinical Techniques and Case Report in a Dental School Training Experience.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

Same journal

We May Have Done Something Right: Composite Restorations at the College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

Same journal

Comparison of Laser Versus Rotary Instrumentation- A Case Study.

The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association·2018

See all related articles

This study compared the compressive properties of Ti-Core and FluoroCore dental materials. Neither material is recommended for foundation restorations due to strength and stiffness limitations.

Area of Science:

Materials Science
Biomaterials Engineering
Dental Materials

Background:

Core buildup materials are crucial for dental foundation restorations.
Evaluating the mechanical properties of these materials is essential for clinical success.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the compressive properties (strength, modulus of elasticity, toughness) of Ti-Core and FluoroCore.
To assess the influence of aging on these properties.

Main Methods:

Cylindrical specimens of Ti-Core and FluoroCore were aged for 1, 7, or 28 days.
Compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and toughness were measured.
Two-way analysis of variance and Scheffé F-tests were employed for statistical analysis.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

Material type significantly affected all compressive properties (p < 0.002).
Specimen age and material x specimen age interactions were not significant (p > 0.400).
FluoroCore exhibited higher strength and toughness, while Ti-Core showed greater stiffness but brittle fracture.

Conclusions:

Neither Ti-Core nor FluoroCore are recommended for foundation restorations.
Ti-Core's low strength and FluoroCore's insufficient elastic modulus limit their suitability.