World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Formulation of Optimized Regression Model for Flexural Strength of Experimental Dental Composite Resins with Nanohydroxyapatite Filler Particles

Chaitali K Marajkar, Jasmin Winnier, Umesh V Hambire

Keywords : Biomaterials, Dental composite resins, Dental materials, Glass, Hydroxyapatite, Zirconia

Citation Information : Marajkar CK, Winnier J, Hambire UV. Formulation of Optimized Regression Model for Flexural Strength of Experimental Dental Composite Resins with Nanohydroxyapatite Filler Particles. World J Dent 2023; 14 (12):1050-1055.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2346

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims: The study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the mechanical properties of experimental dental composite resins (EDCR) containing nanohydroxyapatite, zirconia, and glass filler particles. Materials and methods: The experimental dental composite resin's organic matrix was a combination of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA). Camphorquinone (CQ) and dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEM) were added as photoinitiators. Ethyl-4-(dimethylamino) benzoate (EDMAB) was added as an accelerator, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) was added as an inhibitor to the organic matrix. A combination of barium aluminum fluoride glass (5–20 nm), zirconia (4–11 nm), and hydroxyapatite (20–80 nm) were added as fillers in varying percentages. The Taguchi method of optimization was used to obtain a composite with optimum flexural strength (FS). A regression model was developed. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D 790–03 was used to prepare the specimen for testing the FS. Results: Experimental dental composite resin with 23.7% of zirconia, 27.5% of nanohydroxyapatite, and 20% of glass filler particles gave the optimum FS of 164.44 MPa. The confirmatory experimental test of EDCR gave an FS of 168 MPa. The model developed with a regression equation for the FS was FS = 2205 − 339Z + 25.6H + 3.53ZH − 1.94G + 2.41Z2 − 1.58H2 The difference between the R-square (99.9) and adjusted R-square values (99.8) is <0.2; this shows that the model is acceptable. Conclusion: The EDCR developed after Taguchi's method of optimization had FS superior to that of the commercially available composite resins. The regression model obtained for the FS can be used globally to develop a composite resin with zirconia, hydroxyapatite, and glass nanofiller particles. Clinical significance: Restoration of lost tooth structure with a biomimetic material is the need of the hour. Our experimental dental composite incorporates nanohydroxyapatite filler particles, which provide FS similar to that of a natural tooth.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Huang W, Ren L, Cheng Y, et al. Evaluation of the color stability, water sorption, and solubility of current resin composites. Materials 2022;15(19):6710. DOI: 10.3390/ma15196710
  2. Tambrallimath V, Keshavamurthy R, Bavan SD, et al. Mechanical properties of pc-abs-based graphene-reinforced polymer nanocomposites fabricated by FDM process. Polymers (Basel) 2021;13(17):2951. DOI: 10.3390/polym13172951
  3. Garoushi S, Lassila L, Vallittu PK. Impact of fast high-intensity versus conventional light-curing protocol on selected properties of dental composites. Materials 2021;14(6):1381. DOI: 10.3390/ma14061381
  4. Calabrese L, Fabiano F, Curro M, et al. Hydroxyapatite whiskers based resin composite versus commercial dental composites: mechanical and biocompatibility characterization. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2016;1–9. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2172365
  5. Marghalani HY. Resin-based dental composite materials. In handbook of bioceramics and biocomposites; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany 2016;357–405.
  6. Zagho MM, Hussein EA, Elzatahry AA. Recent overviews in functional polymer composites for biomedical applications. Polymers (Basel) 2018;10(7):739. DOI: 10.3390/polym10070739
  7. Fronza BM, Lewis S, Shah PK, et al. Modification of filler surface treatment of composite resins using alternative silanes and functional nanogels. Dent Mater 2019;35(6):928–936. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.03.007
  8. Mirsayar MM. On fracture analysis of dental restorative materials under combined tensile-shear loading. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2018;93:170–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2017.07.020
  9. Mirsayar MM, Park P. Modified maximum tangential stress criterion for fracture behavior of zirconia/veneer interfaces. J Mech Behav BiomedMater 2016;59:236–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.037
  10. Stencel R, Kasperski J, Pakieła W, et al. Properties of experimental dental composites containing antibacterial silver-releasing filler. Materials (Basel) 2018;11(6):1031. DOI: 10.3390/ma11061031
  11. Conte R, De Luise A, Valentino A, et al. Hydrogel nanocomposite systems. In Nanocarriers for Drug Delivery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2019;319–349.
  12. Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, et al. Bioactive dental materials-do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent Mater 2018;34(5):693–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.001
  13. Tiskaya M, Shahid S, Gillam D, et al. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: a critical review. Dent Mater 2021;37(2):296–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.015
  14. Gandolfi MG, Taddei P, Siboni F, et al. Biomimetic remineralization of human dentin using promising innovative calcium-silicate hybrid “smart” materials. Dent Mater 2011;27(11):1055–1069. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.007
  15. Abd El Halim S. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of a bioactive composite and nano-composite: an in vitro study. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(2):1653–1659. DOI: 10.21608/EDJ.2018.78402
  16. Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, et al. 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in class II carious lesion: a randomized control study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(1):92–96. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18
  17. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U, Benetti A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dent Mater 2019;35(2):335–343. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027
  18. Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(1):13–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2205
  19. Tarle Z, Par M. Bioactive dental composite materials. Rad Hrvat Akad Znan Umjet Med Znan 2018;533(44):83–100. DOI: 10.21857/mnlqgc02ky
  20. Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(1):7–13. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.79913
  21. Rifai H, Qasim S, Mahdi S, et al. In-vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength and fluoride release of a new bioactive dental composite material. J Clin Exp Dent 2022;14(1):e55–e63. DOI: 10.4317/jced.58966
  22. Spagnuolo G. Bioactive dental materials: the current status. Materials (Basel) 2022:15(6):2016. DOI: 10.3390/ma15062016
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.