The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative Physico-mechanical Characterization of New Hybrid Restorative Materials with Conventional Glass-ionomer and Resin Composite Restorative Materials
Abstract
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 latter 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bollenl, C. M. L., Lambrechts, P., & Quirynen, M. (1997) · Dental Materials · doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3 · Cited by 1,911
Self-citationMechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents
Attar, N., Tam, L. E., & McComb, D. (2003) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1067/mpr.2003.20 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Gladys, S., Van Meerbeek, B., Braem, M., Lambrechts, P., & Vanherle, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Dental Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-04
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 883-894
- ISSN
- 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-0591
- OpenAlex
- W2116249194
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Physico-mechanical Characterization of New Hybrid Restorative Materials with Conventional Glass-ionomer and Resin Composite Restorative Materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00220345970760041001
- The paper
- Gladys, S., Van Meerbeek, B., Braem, M., Lambrechts, P., & Vanherle, G. (1997). Comparative Physico-mechanical Characterization of New Hybrid Restorative Materials with Conventional Glass-ionomer and Resin Composite Restorative Materials. Journal of Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345970760041001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.