EC Dental Science

Context: Pediatric dental restorations require materials with biocompatibility, fluoride release, and mechanical strength to endure occlusal forces and caries risk. Compressive strength is a crucial factor influencing the clinical durability of restorations, especially in primary molars subjected to masticatory stress.

Aims: To assess and compare the compressive strength of Type IX Glass Ionomer Cement (GC Gold Label), flowable glass ionomer composite resin (Kids-e-Restore), and posterior restorative composite material (3M™ Filtek Bulk Fill) in primary molars.

Settings and Design: This in vitro study used extracted primary molars to simulate pediatric posterior restorations with standardized class II cavity preparations.

Materials and Methods: Thirty caries-free extracted primary molars were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15 each):

• Group I: Type IX GIC.
• Group II: 3M™ Filtek Bulk Fill composite.
• Group III: Flowable GIC (Kids-e-Restore).

Restorations followed manufacturer protocols. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C and tested for compressive strength using a Universal Testing Machine at 0.5 mm/min.

Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: 3M™ Filtek Bulk Fill showed the highest mean compressive strength (10437.8 ± 951.9 kN), followed by Type IX GIC (9778.0 ± 1151.7 kN), and flowable GIC (6436.0 ± 1238.0 kN), with statistically significant differences (p = 0.000).

Conclusion: 3M™ Filtek Bulk Fill is best suited for stress-bearing posterior pediatric restorations. Type IX GIC offers a balance of strength and fluoride release for non-load areas, while flowable GIC is recommended for low-stress applications or as a base material.

Keywords: Primary Molar; Compressive Strength; Bonding Efficiency; Stress Distribution

1. Pathak AK and Mallikarjuna K. “An in vitro comparative evaluation of compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, and shear bond strength of type II glass ionomer cement, Type IX glass ionomer cement, and Cention N on primary molars”. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry 2 (2021): 57-61.
2. Somani R., et al. “Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study”. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 3 (2016): 192-196.
3. Mazumdar P., et al. “Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a newly developed alkasite restorative material”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 6 (2018): 655-659.
4. Arora R., et al. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study”. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine 2 (2014): 373-377.
5. Pradeep K., et al. “In vitro comparison of compressive strength of bulk-fill composites and nanohybrid composite”. World Journal of Dentistry 3 (2016): 119-122.
6. Gupta SK., et al. “Use of bulk fill resin composite and universal adhesive for restoring primary teeth after selective carious tissue removal to soft dentin: A randomized clinical trial”. American Journal of Dentistry 2 (2022): 97-102.
7. Khuderi F., et al. “Adhesive bond strength and compressive strength of a novel bulk fill composite with zirconia nano-hybrid filler”. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 4 (2016): 450-463.
8. Mazumdar P., et al. “Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (Restorative GIC, Cention N. “Nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam: An in vitro study”. International Journal of Advanced Research 6 (2018): 826-832.
9. Gupta SK., et al. “Bulkfill vs conventional composites: A microleakage study”. Journal of Periodontal Medicine and Clinical Practice 03 (2016): 122-127.
10. Mota EG., et al. “Evaluation of diametrical tensile strength and knoop micro-hardness of five nanofilled composites in dentin and enamel shades”. Stomatologija 3 (2006): 67-69.
11. Banava S and Salehyar S. “In vitro comparative study of compressive strength of different types of composite resins in different periods of time”. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 1 (2008): 69-74.
12. Jung M., et al. “Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple step polishing”. Operative Dentistry 4 (2007): 347-355.
13. Papadogiannis Y., et al. “Fatigue of packable dental composites”. Dental Materials 2 (2007): 235-242.
14. Sideridou ID., et al. “Physical properties of current dental nanohybrid and nanofill light-cured resin composites”. Dental Materials 6 (2011): 598-607.