Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 31, 2026
Concurrent Quantification of Cellular and Extracellular Components of Biofilms
Published on: December 10, 2013
Testing mechanical properties and degree of conversion of resin-based composite material containing contact killing
Heba A Mitwalli1, Bashayer H Baras1, Sara S Saeed2
1Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Background:
A major drawback of resin composites is their tendency to accumulate microbial biofilms that can lead to secondary caries. The objective of this study was to compare the mechanical properties and the degree of conversion of commercial resin-based composite materials containing a contact-killing antibacterial agent, dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate (DMAHDM), at different concentrations, with a fluoride-releasing composite material.
Materials And Methods:
Four groups were tested: Tetric N Ceram composite material (G1), Tetric Evo Ceram (G2), and Tetric N Ceram with the addition of contact-killing antibacterial agent DMAHDM at concentrations of 3% (G3) and 5% (G4). The mechanical properties, including flexural strength, elastic modulus, and Vickers microhardness and the degree of conversion were investigated.
Results:
Adding 3 % and 5 % DMAHDM resulted in flexural strength values that were comparable to Tetric Evo Ceram. Tetric N Ceram was comparable to the group containing 3 % DMAHDM (p > 0.05). However, it was significantly greater when compared to Tetric Evo Ceram (93.3 ± 9.4) and 5 % DMAHDM (p < 0.05). Both the elastic modulus and Vickers microhardness values of Tetric N Ceram were significantly higher than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the elastic modulus of Tetric Evo Ceram showed similar results to groups with 3 % and 5 % DMAHDM. Nevertheless, the Vickers microhardness value is significantly higher when compared to 5 % DMAHDM (0.394 ± 0.021) (p < 0.05) while it was comparable to that of 3 % DMAHDM (0.484 ± 0.016) (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of conversion between the groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
Adding 3% DMAHDM to Tetric N Ceram resulted in flexural strength values that were similar to those of Tetric N Ceram and Tetric Evo Ceram. DMAHDM did not affect the degree of conversion of Tetric N Ceram composite.
