COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF THREE BULK FILLED COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS –AN IN-VITRO STUDY

Abstract

Aim of the study: Aim of this study is to Evaluate and Compare the compressive strength of three different bulk filled composite restorative materials: Beautifil II LS, Cention N and Filtek Z250.

Methodology: Three commercially available composite restorative materials were divided into 3 groups i.e. GROUP 1- Beautifil II LS, GROUP 2- Filtek Z250 and GROUP 3-Cention N. A Customised Aluminium cylindrical moulds of dimension 6mm height and 4mm diameter was used to fabricate 10 samples each of Beautifil II LS, Filtek Z250 and Cention N. Samples were cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions and were stored in Distilled water at 37 degrees for 24 hours. The samples were then tested for evaluation of compressive strength using Universal Testing Machine (UTM). This was then connected to load measuring cell, which continuously recorded the load applied to the samples at a crosshead speed of 0.75+-0.25mm per 1 minute till the sample fractures.

Statistical Analysis: One way Anova and Boneferri Post Hoc Test were used for statistical analysis.

Results: The values were recorded and subjected to statistical analysis for comparison of compressive strength. The results showed that Beautifil II LS has highest compressive strength followed by Filtek Z250 and the least was seen in Cention N.

Conclution: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Beautifil II LS can be used as a superior alternative to Filtek Z250 and Cention N as its Compressive strength was found to be Significantly High. However, long term clinical studies are required to draw any substantial conclusion.

Keywords: Beautifil II LS, Cention N, Filtek Z250, Compressive strength.