Evaluating acrylic and glass-ionomer cement strength using the biaxial flexure test

A discriminatory mechanical testing performance indicator protocol for hand-mixed glass-ionomer restoratives

“…Bonifacio et al [44], Torabzadeh et al [45] and Higgs et al [46] failed to identify significant differences in the TFS for GIs mixed at the recommended powder:liquid mixing ratio and with 50% of the recommended powder content [44], 80% of the recommended powder content [45] or between a posterior and anterior handmixed GI restorative from the same manufacturer [46]. This observation occurred despite the reported powder:liquid mixing ratio of the posterior GI restorative (3.5:1 g:g) investigated being higher than the powder:liquid mixing ratio of its anterior counterpart (2.7:1 g:g) [46] which intuitively does not make sense. As a result, the findings of the current study indicate that the hypothesis that the TFS test would identify a linear deterioration for a hand-mixed GI restorative manipulated at reduced powder content (in 10% increments) for a constant weight of liquid and thereby act as a performance indicator was rejected.…”

Zinc-based glass polyalkenoate cements with improved setting times and mechanical properties

“…They have potential as bone cements because they adhere to both surgical metals and the mineral phase of bone [2,3], they set without shrinkage [4] or significant heat evolution [5], and they have mechanical properties (compressive strength up to 200 MPa [6], biaxial flexural strength up to 50 MPa [7], setting times up to 6 min [8]) similar to those necessary for use in orthopaedic procedures ISO5833 [9].…”

The effect of different reinforcements on the fracture toughness of materials for interim restorations

“…22 The fracture mechanism approach is considered a reliable indicator of the performance of brittle materials. 23 A fracture toughness test measures the resistance of a material to crack extension. 24 Different tests have been used to quantify the fracture toughness of dental materials.…”