Journal of Dental Research vol:76 issue:4 pages:883-94
The recently developed hybrid restorative materials contain the essential components of conventional glass ionomers and light-cured resins. The objective of this study was to determine several physical and mechanical properties of eight such materials in comparison with two conventional glass ionomers, one micro-filled, and one ultrafine compact-filled resin composite. The two resin composites and two of the three polyacid-modified resin composites could be polished to a higher gloss than the conventional as well as the resin-modified glass ionomers. After abrasion, surface roughness increased for all materials, but not at the same extent, being the least for the conventional resin composites and one polyacid-modified resin composite, Dyract. In contrast to the later resin composites, of which the surface roughness is principally determined by the presence of protruding filler particles above the resin matrix, roughness of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers results from both protruding filler particles and intruding porosities. The mean particle size of the hybrid restorative materials fell between the smaller mean particle size of the resin composites and the larger one of the conventional glass ionomers. The micro-hardness and Young's modulus values varied substantially among all eight hybrid restorative materials. For all the resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials, the Young's modulus reached a maximum value one month after mixing and remained relatively stable thereafter. The Young's modulus of the conventional and the polyacid-modified resin composites decreased slightly after one month. The conventional glass-ionomer materials undoubtedly set the slowest, since their Young's modulus took six months to reach its maximum. The flexural fatigue limit of the hybrid restorative materials is comparable with that of the micro-filled composite. From this investigation, it can be concluded that the physico-mechanical properties vary widely among the eight hybrid restorative materials, indicating that these materials probably have yet to achieve their optimum properties. Their mechanical strength is inadequate for use in stress-bearing areas, and their appearance keeps them from use where esthetics is a primary concern.