Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 22, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Can CAD/CAM resin blocks be considered as substitute for conventional resins?
Badra Hussain1, Minh Khai Le Thieu1, Gaute Floer Johnsen1
1Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, PO Box 1109, Blindern, NO-0376 Oslo, Norway.
Objective:
Dentists are facing a myriad of new CAD/CAM product for dental filling therapies. Are the new materials any worthwhile using? Are they succeeding the standard filling materials? Here we compare for the first time the new resin-composite blocks (RCBs) with conventional materials (Filtek Z250 and Tetric EvoCeram).
Methods:
The material were tested for residual monomer elution by HPLC, thermogravimetric analysis (TG) was used to determine the percentage of fillers by weight, hardness was evaluated by Vickers method, morphology of fillers and distribution in the matrix were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), elemental analysis for elemental determination of the filler particles was performed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) cytotoxicity using human gingival fibroblasts and an epithelial cell line.
Results:
The RBC outperformed conventional composite regarding mechanical characteristics (hardness) and monomer eluation, but showed some worrisome results regarding cytotoxicity.
Significance:
The cost benefit is not in favour of RBCs in comparison to conventional composites, as the cytotoxicity was found higher for RBCs.
Related Concept Videos
01:31Plasticizers
Plasticizers function by using surface-active agents to create repulsive electrostatic forces between cement particles. This dispersion enhances the concrete's...
01:24Characteristics and Nomenclature of Copolymers