Comparative Analysis of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bioactive Alkasite Compared to Other Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials

TL;DR

This study compares the strength of bioactive Alkasite with other dental materials and finds that a compomer is stronger for certain uses.

Contribution

The study provides a comparative mechanical evaluation of bioactive Alkasite against other ion-releasing dental materials.

Findings

Dyract XP showed the highest compressive and flexural strengths among the tested materials.

Fuji II LC had a significantly higher flexural modulus than Dyract XP.

Cention N is suitable for areas with less occlusal stress but less strong than the compomer.

Abstract

Background: Ion-releasing and bioactive restorative materials are an integral part of restorative dentistry, especially in light of minimally invasive and esthetic intervention strategies. Their strength and mechanical properties directly influence their durability and indicated use. Methods: This study aimed to comparatively analyze the compressive strengths, flexural strengths, and flexural moduli of bioactive Alkasite (Cention N) and other ion-releasing restorative materials, specifically a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC, Fuji II LC) and a compomer (Dyract XP). Cylindrical and bar-shaped specimens were fabricated from each material (n = 6 per material and conducted test) and subjected to mechanical strength testing (compressive and flexural strength) using a 2 kN cell universal testing machine (Instron 5944) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Statistical analysis, using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests, was conducted. Results: The results revealed significant differences in mechanical properties between the tested materials. Dyract XP showed the greatest compressive and flexural strengths (170.79 ± 23.59 MPa and 114.09 ± 30.78 MPa) (p < 0.01). Fuji II LC had a significantly greater flexural modulus (10.21 ± 4.46 GPa) than Dyract XP. Conclusions: The findings indicated that the investigated compomer could produce stronger restorations than the investigated alkasite and RMGIC, which would make them preferred for posterior teeth restoration. However, the alkasite Cention N might still be a good option for the treatment of carious lesions in areas with less occlusal stress.

Figures