Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Innovative Nanozirconia and Nanodiamond Filled Novel Resin Cement

Submitted:

24 November 2025

Posted:

28 November 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Self-adhesive dual-cure resin cements (DCRC) simplified clinical application to a single-step procedure. Studies reported inferior mechanical properties compared to conventional resin cements. This study evaluated and compared the compressive strength (CS) and flexural strength (FS) of commercial DCRC against its modification using 10 vol% nanozirconia and 10 vol% nanodiamond. Three groups were prepared: Group 1 (commercial resin cement), Group 2 (nanozirconia-modified), and Group 3 (nanodiamond-modified), with 10 samples per group. 3-(Trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate was used as coupling agent. Specimens were prepared according to manufacturer instructions and tested for CS and FS using a Universal Instron testing machine. Data was analysed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test. Compressive strength values were Group 2 = 132.18 ± 27.93 MPa, Group 3 = 126.21 ± 12.54 MPa, Group 1 = 121.12 ± 19.35 MPa. Flexural strength values were Group 2 = 72.5 ± 10.4 MPa, Group 3 = 71.06 ± 6.3 MPa, Group 1 = 66.92 ± 5.27 MPa. Both nanozirconia and nanodiamond incorporation showed improvements in CS and FS compared to the control group. Within the limitations of this study, nanozirconia modified dual cure resin cement showed higher values compared to nanodiamond modified dual cure resin. These results support further research to optimize nanofiller-reinforced luting cements.

Keywords: 
nano-modification for cement
;  
nanozirconia
;  
nanodiamond
;  
dual-cure resin cement
;  
self-adhesive resin cement
;  
mechanical properties of resin cement
Subject: 
Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Ceramics and Composites

1. Introduction

Ceramic restorations are contemporary restorations widely used in patients with high esthetic demands for correction of minor interdental spacing, shape and color of the teeth, particularly the anterior teeth. The success of such restorations depends mainly on the durability of the bond strength between tooth structure and ceramic substrate which is achieved by using luting cements [1-4]. Luting cements are essential to bond the indirect restorations with the tooth surface. Traditionally zinc phosphate was used for cementation for more than a century and hence it is considered as gold standard against which all other cements are tested and compared [5,6,7]. Other luting cements include zinc polycarboxylate, glass ionomer cement and the latest being the resin cements. Today resin cements are the materials of choice over other luting cements due to their superior properties such as resistance to wear, low solubility, high retention, versatility and long lasting and good aesthetics [8]. Also they are biocompatible, have excellent optical properties and are repairable [9,10,11]. Resin cements were introduced in dentistry in 1970s and since then have been the material of interest and focus among the dental practitioners and researchers [12,13].
Resin cements are composite materials with less viscosity and consist of fillers and initiators that facilitate lower film thickness along with adequate working and setting time [14]. Dual-cure resin cement is preferred resin cements due to high degree of conversion. N. Hofmann et al found that when dual-cure resin cement was only self-cured (without light exposure), there was a steep decline in its strengths, flexural strength by 68.9%, elasticity by 59.2% and hardness by 86.1% compared to the one cured both by light and self-cure [15]. They are used for cementation of full cast-metal crowns, ceramic crowns, zirconia constructions, indirect composite restorations, traditional metal–ceramic prosthesis, metal and glass fiber post, core build-up, implant-supported crowns and bridges, ceramic veneers, orthodontic braces and so on [16,17,18,19,20]. They basically consist of an organic resin matrix, inorganic filler particles and a coupling agent that bonds them together.
There are various types of resin cements developed over years, each with some uniqueness. Earlier resin cements consisted of polymethyl methacrylate which underwent high polymerization shrinkage after curing and it’s compressive strength (CS) and flexural strengths (FS) were too low and to overcome this, the number of methacrylates was reduced with addition of filler particles [21]. Contemporary resin cements use dimethacrylate monomers like bisphenol-A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA), bisphenol-A-ethoxy dimethacrylate (BisEMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) [22]. Of these monomers, BisGMA is the most used due to its high strength and hardness [13]. These monomers cause polymerization shrinkage due to their high viscosity therefore diluents like TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate) and EGDMA (ethylene glycol dimethacrylate) are added to reduce viscosity and facilitate increased filler content [23]. If polymerization is incomplete, then it results in fast degradation of resin matrix leading to higher chances of fracture and debonding [24].
Filler particles are added to resin matrix to enhance its properties. Nanoparticles have large surface area and disperse easily in the polymer resin matrix and hence enhance the physical and mechanical properties of the resin cements [25]. Various filler particles were used such as quartz, silica, oxides of zinc and aluminum, calcium silicate, zirconia nanofiller, , hydroxyapatite crystals, barium silicate, strontium silicate etc. [26,27,28,29] and all of them have been successful in improving different mechanical properties in varying degree. In this study zirconia and diamond nanoparticles (NPs) are used and their effect on compressive strength and flexural strength is being studied.
ZrO2 is 96%-99% crystalline because of which it has high flexural strength (>900MPa), fracture toughness, and hardness, good corrosion resistance, superior physio-mechanical and biological properties, satisfactory esthetics, and bio inert with excellent biocompatibility [30,31]. Some of the properties are mentioned in Table 1 [32].
Diamond nanoparticles are widely considered as smart nanomaterial because of their extreme hardness (10 on Mohs scale), modulus of elasticity (>1000GPa), thermal conductivity, biocompatibility, thermal expansion, optical transparency, chemical corrosion resistance, excellent tribological properties and electrical insulation [33,34,35,36]. The properties of diamond nanoparticles is superior to bulk diamond form [37,38]. Some of the properties are mentioned in Table 2.
Improving compressive strength, tensile strength and elastic modulus is the basic purpose of adding these filler particles to the resin matrix [44]. The recommended percentage of filler content in resin cement is between 10 wt% - 30 wt% because increasing the percentage of fillers from 10 wt% up to 70 wt% results in increased material rigidity leading to increased polymerization stresses and failure [45]. When volume percentage is taken into consideration then the filler content should be between 31 vol%- 66 vol% [46] and between 17.36 vol%-53.56 vol% [47]. Filler particles of same size in the material often results in void formation hence incorporating filler particles of different sizes is advisable to improve packing density and the performance of rein cement [48,49]. Studies have found that the use of filler particles, their size and morphology, Silane treatment greatly improvise the strength and reduce the wear and polymerization shrinkage of resin cement [50,51,52,53,54,55,56].
A good bond between the organic resin matric and inorganic filler particles is essential for a resin cement to last longer and this bonding is achieved using a binding agent called a coupling agent, usually silanes [57]. Silane has the ability to bond between the hydroxyl groups of inorganic filler particles as well as methacrylate group of organic resin matrix [13] and hydrolysis of Silane agents often jeopardizes the bond strength.
Good luting cement not only establishes a strong bond between tooth structure and the indirect restoration but also possesses excellent physical and mechanical properties to withstand occlusal forces. Bite forces range between 100N-320N [58]. To withstand such a force the resin cement should have high compressive and flexural strength. Some of the causes of the failure of resin cement are microleakage and secondary caries, adhesive, cohesive and mixed failures, polymerization shrinkage and so on. Till date there is no resin cement available that possesses mechanical properties resembling that of ideal resin cement therefore resin cement has been the subject of extensive studies and investigation since their introduction in dentistry. The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the compressive strength and flexural strength of self-adhesive dual-cure resin cement with its modifications using 10 vol% nanozirconia and 10 vol% nanodiamond filler particles in an effort to obtain novel resin cement with improved mechanical properties.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials used in this study were RelyX U200 dual-cure resin cement (3M ESPE), zirconia oxide nanoparticles (Vedayukt India Pvt Ltd), diamond nanoparticles (Vedayukt India Pvt Ltd) and 3-(Trimethoxysilyl)propyl methacrylate coupling agent (Tokyo Chemical Industry (India) Pvt Ltd) and is mentioned in Table 3. Three groups were prepared using these materials. The groups were as follows. Group 1: Commercial dual-cure resin cement, group 2: 10% Nanozirconia modified dual-cure resin cement, group 3: 10% Nanodiamond modified dual-cure resin cement. These groups are mentioned in Table 4. Nanozirconia and nanodiamond, each were added 10% volume to commercially available dual-cure resin cement RelyX U200. The volume was measured by using graduated test tube. Two different moulds made of clear acrylic were procured for testing compressive strength and flexural strength. The measurements of the moulds are as follows. Compressive strength moulds of size of 6mm height x 3mm diameter. Flexural strength moulds of size 25mm length x 2mm breadth x 2mm height.
Flowchart of the methodology is depicted below in Figure 1.
One important thing to note here is the use of nanofiller in volume percentage. Different nanoparticles possess different densities which makes volumetric measurement less reliable in cases where absolute weight accuracy is crucial. However, the primary objectives of this study was to compare and evaluate the properties of resin cement by just altering filler type (zirconia and diamond) at specific volume fraction while maintaining other experimental conditions constant. This approach is seen in literature where volume% was used to express nanoparticles addition rather than weight% [59,60,61,62].
Secondly, in clinical conditions, resin cements are mixed volumetrically thus it reflects actual mixing conditions. Also that, both the nanofillers followed same protocol of measuring and mixing thus ensuring consistency even if their densities varied.
As for the issue about agglomeration and dispersion control, similar studies are found were nanoparticles were manually dispersed with coupling agent without significantly affecting agglomeration and dispersion [63,64,65]. And as mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study to comparative evaluation and not for absolute density calibration, so this method is adequate and is reproducible. However, based on the findings of this study it is recommended to further investigate by means of varying methodology and approach.
Table 3. Materials used in the research study.
Table 3. Materials used in the research study.
Material Brand name Serial number
RelyX U200 A2 Shade 3M ESPE 30064000 (HSC Code)
Nanozirconia Vedayukt India Pvt Ltd 1314-23-4 (CAS)
Nanodiamond Vedayukt India Pvt Ltd 7782-40-3 (CAS)
3-(Trimethoxysilyl) propyl Methacrylate Tokyo Chemical Industry (India)Pvt Ltd 2530-85-0 (CAS)
Table 4. Groups in the study.
Table 4. Groups in the study.
Nanoparticles Group 1
(control) 		Group 2 Group 3
Nanozirconia (vol%) - 10 % -
Nanodiamond (vol%) - - 10%
Group 1- 11g of 100% RelyX U200 dual-cure resin cement was used as the control group. The base and catalyst were measured in small increments in equal quantities using digital weighing machine (Precision balance, LWL Germany, Model: LB-210S) and mixed manually over the glass slab to obtain a uniform mix. This mix was then loaded thoroughly in the moulds, avoiding air bubbles and voids formation. Then each sample was light cured for 40 seconds to obtain a well cured sample using Woodpecker i-LED Plus curing light whose light intensity at normal mode is approximately 1000–1200 mW/cm². The tip of curing light was placed closely over the sample and the sample was cured on both sides. Total 20 samples were prepared with 10 samples each for compressive strength and flexural strength testing. The samples were then removed from the moulds and polished at room temperature by using silicon carbide sandpapers of 1000, 1200, 1500 and 2000 grit. The samples were marked and stored at room temperature.
Group 2- 10% nanozirconia particles were mixed with coupling agent on a glass slab. This mixture was then added to base paste of commercial dual-cure resin cement (RelyX U200) taken on another glass slab. This base paste and the catalyst paste were then measured in small increments in equal quantity using digital weighing machine (Precision balance, LWL Germany, Model: LB-210S) and were mixed well on the glass slab and loaded in the moulds, avoiding air bubbles and voids formation. Then each sample was light cured for 40 seconds to obtain a well cured sample. Samples were prepared with 10 samples each for compressive strength and flexural strength testing. The samples were then removed from the moulds and polished at room temperature by using silicon carbide sandpapers of 1000, 1200, 1500 and 2000 grit. The samples were marked and stored at room temperature.
Group 3- Commercially available dual-cure resin cement (RelyX U200) was taken 90% by volume which is equivalent to 1067mg and 10% by volume nanodiamond was measured using a graduated test tube. Similar process as that of group 2 preparation was followed to prepare group 3 using 10% nanodiamond particles by volume and the samples were stored at room temperature.
The volume percentage to weight percentage for nanozirconia and nanodiamond is mentioned below in Table 5 and Table 6 below.
Adding nanoparticles to base paste while maintaining manufacturer’s recommendation of base: catalyst 1:1 by weight is commonly accepted methodology, though it dilutes the monomer when used at higher concentrations, however at lower concentration, as in this study, this affect is negligible and this was confirmed by FTIR analysis in earlier studies [65,66]. Alteration of initiator and accelerators in the catalyst paste affects the chemistry and introduces greater variability and reduces clinical relevance but here since variation is in the nanofiller and base paste so it does not affect or alter the polymerization stoichiometry. We acknowledge that FTIR-based DC analysis was not performed and recommend it as a limitation and direction for future research.
Compressive strength was measured according to ISO 4049/2019. The samples were cylindrical measuring 6mm height and 3mm diameter. The samples were placed vertically in the loading frame of computerized and software based universal instron testing machine (ACME Engineers, India Model No. UNITEST-10) and held securely using grips (Figure 2 a&b) and load was gradually applied till the samples broke. The speed of the machine was 1mm/minute. The load at which the samples broke was recorded.
Flexural strength was measured according to ISO 4049/2019. The samples were placed horizontally in the loading frame of the universal instron testing machine and held securely with grips and load was gradually applied at the head speed of 1mm/minute till the samples broke. The load measuring cell records the load applied. The results were analysed using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD Test.

3. Results

There was no statistically crucial difference in compressive strength among the groups (p = 0.505). Group II (Nano zirconia) had the highest mean compressive strength (132.18 ± 27.93 MPa), followed by Group III (Nano diamond) at 126.21 ± 12.54 MPa, and Group I (commercial cement) at 121.12 ± 19.35 MPa. While the trend suggests a slight improvement with Nano reinforcement, the statistical analysis does not support a meaningful difference between the groups.
Preprints 186458 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of compressive strength values of One-Way ANOVA test of all 3 groups.
Figure 3. Comparison of compressive strength values of One-Way ANOVA test of all 3 groups.
Preprints 186458 g003
Table 7. Mean compressive strength values and one-way ANOVA values.
Table 7. Mean compressive strength values and one-way ANOVA values.
Variable Group1 (Mean±SD) Group2 (Mean±SD) Group3 (Mean±SD) F (df₁, df₂) p-value
Compressive strength 121.12±19.35 132.18±27.93 126.21±12.54 F(2,27)=0.701
 0.505
Table 8. Post Hoc Multiple Comparison (Tukey HSD Test) values of CS.
Table 8. Post Hoc Multiple Comparison (Tukey HSD Test) values of CS.
Dependent Variable Comparison Groups Mean Difference (I–J) Standard Error p-value 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper
Compressive Strength Group 1 vs. Group 2
 -11.060
 9.353
 0.473 -34.229
 12.109
Group 1 vs. Group 3
 -5.973 9.353
 0.850
 -29.143
 17.196
Group 2 vs. Group 3 5.087 9.353 0.910 -18.083
 28.257
Insignificant differences were observed between the groups for compressive strength (p > 0.05), suggesting that the addition of nanofiller did not meaningfully alter the compressive properties of the resin cement.
There was no statistically prominent difference in flexural strength among the three groups (p = 0.256). Group II (Nano zirconia) had the maximum mean flexural strength (72.50 ± 10.40 MPa), followed closely by Group III (Nano diamond) at 71.06 ± 6.30 MPa, and Group I (unmodified resin cement) at 66.92 ± 5.27 MPa. Although the modified groups demonstrated numerically higher values, the lack of statistical significance indicates that these differences may be due to random variation and not the effect of nanoparticle modification.
Preprints 186458 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of flexural strength values of One-Way ANOVA test of all 3 groups.
Figure 4. Comparison of flexural strength values of One-Way ANOVA test of all 3 groups.
Preprints 186458 g004
Table 9. Mean flexural strength values and one-way ANOVA values.
Table 9. Mean flexural strength values and one-way ANOVA values.
Variable Group1 (Mean± SD) Group2 (Mean± SD) Group3 (Mean± SD) F (df₁, df₂) p-value
Flexural strength 66.92 ± 5.27 72.50 ± 10.40 71.06 ± 6.30 F(2, 27) = 1.435 0.256
Table 10. Post Hoc Multiple Comparison (Tukey HSD Test) values of flexural strength.
Table 10. Post Hoc Multiple Comparison (Tukey HSD Test) values of flexural strength.
Dependent Variable Comparison Groups Mean Difference (I–J) Standard Error p-value 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper
Flexural Strength Group 1 vs.
Group 2
 -5.580 3.420
 0.250
 -14.061
 2.901
Group 1 vs.
Group 3
 -4.144 3.420 0.457 -12.625 4.337
Group 2 vs.
Group 3		 1.436 3.420 0.909 -7.045 9.917
Insignificant variations were noted between any of the groups (p > 0.05), indicating that the type of resin cement had no notable impact on flexural strength.

4. Discussion

Compressive strength: Compressive strength is defined as the maximum compressive stress that a material can withstand before failure [67]. It is also the capacity of a material to resist a load that tends to reduce its size [68]. CS is a very critical factor in success of the materials since high CS is essential to withstand masticatory and Para-functional stresses [69,70,71]. In this study Compressive strength of group 1, group 2 and group 3 was found to be 121.12 ± 19.35 MPa, 132.18 ± 27.93 MPa, 126.21 ± 12.54 MPa, respectively. Amongst the three group, the CS of commercially available dual-cure resin cement was lowest followed by that of the resin cement modified with 10% nanodiamond filler and the highest CS was found with resin cement modified with 10% nanozirconia fillers. Though there was a slight improvement in the CS of both the modified resin cements compared to the RelyX U200 but the change was very minor and insignificant.
The compressive strength of zirconia nanoparticles is 2000 MPa [32] as a result they are the material of high interest in various fields and have proven to be highly efficient and useful. They have been used as filler particles in various dental cements, including resin cements, and the outcome has been promising in improving the mechanical properties of the cements. Current study focuses on the effect of zirconia nanoparticles on CS of resin luting cement and the results are not satisfactory as there is only a minor improvement in CS of resin cement. This is contrary to the findings of a previous study in which significant improvement in CS was noted and higher CS was noted with higher the percentage of zirconia NPs [72]. To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous study conducted using nanodiamond to evaluate their effect on compressive strength of luting resin cement. Though diamond nanoparticles are a hard and strong material so their addition was expected to enhance CS of resin cement but in this study we found very minimal improvement hence first null hypothesis was partially rejected.
Flexural strength: The flexural strength of a material is the maximum stress that it can resist before failure when subjected to bending load [73]. Flexural strength of Yttrium stabilized zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) is >900MPa [74]. The flexural strengths obtained in this study for group 1, group 2 and group 3 are 66.92 ± 5.27 MPa, 72.50 ± 10.40 MPa, 71.06 ± 6.30 MPa, respectively. The results were similar to that of compressive strength, that is, though there was a minor improvement in the flexural strength of experimental groups compared to control group but the change was insignificant.
The results of this study are in agreement with that of the previous study conducted wherein it was found that the addition of zirconia nanoparticles partially improved FS of resin cement and the change was insignificant [75]. It also agrees with the studies conducted earlier wherein it was found that the type and loading of filler particles affects the FS [76,77,78]. One more finding in this study, when compared to the study conducted by Raja Azman Raja Awang et al. is that the percentage of zirconia nanoparticles added is directly proportional to the FS[79], but increasing it also increases the rigidity of the resin cement [47] which is undesirable for a luting cement, though it is essential for restorative resins wherein a very high FS is more desirable [80,81,82,83,84]. This study, however, is in conflict with the findings of other studies wherein incorporation of zirconia NPs was found to enhance the flexural strength of resin matrix [85,86,87].Based on the findings of this study, second null hypothesis is partially rejected as there is no significant change in the CS values of experimental resin cements.
Similarly, the addition of diamond nanoparticles also partially enhanced the flexural strength of the resin cement. Though there is no previous study on the effect of nanodiamond (ND) particles on flexural strength of resin luting cements but there is a study conducted on their effect on polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture base resins and it was found that NDs enhance the FS of denture base resin [88]. In that study it was found that addition of low concentration of ND (0.1% and 0.25%) had higher FS compared to that of higher concentration of NDs (0.5%). Similar findings were observed in another study conducted on denture base resins [89]. These studies could possibly explain the reason for marginal improvement in the FS values with addition to a much higher percentage of NDs (10%) in this study, though further investigation is warranted on this subject for confirmation.
Table 11 summarizes the gist of the study, its findings, advantages and disadvantages, limitations and comparison of its results with previous studies to analyze whether they are in agreement or in conflict.

5. Conclusions

In this study, addition of 10 vol% nanozirconia and nanodiamond filler particles to dual-cure resin cement did not have statistically significant improvement in both compressive strength and flexural strength compared to unmodified resin cement (p>0.05). Zirconia reinforced dual cure resin cement group showed higher values than nanodiamond modified dual cure resin cement group, which was followed by unmodified resin cement. This suggests that, within the limits of this study, though mechanical properties under the study were not significantly affected but even a slight positive enhancement indicates potential for reinforcement thus encouraging further investigation with different concentrations of nanoparticles, different approach and methodology to obtain a notable improvement in the mechanical properties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; methodology, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; software, Saleem D. Makandar.; validation, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; formal analysis, Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; investigation, Saleem D. Makandar.; resources, Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; data curation, Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; writing—original draft preparation, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; writing—review and editing, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; visualization, Saleem D. Makandar. and Aaqil Arshad Hulikatti.; supervision, Saleem D. Makandar.; project administration, Saleem D. Makandar.; funding acquisition, Saleem D. Makandar. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a Universiti Sains Malaysia, Research University Individual (RUI) Grant Scheme (Grant Number: R502-KR-ARU001-0000001147-K134).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this study will be made available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Universiti Sains Malaysia, Research University Individual (RUI) Grant Scheme (Grant Number: R502-KR-ARU001-0000001147-K134).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BisGMA bisphenol-A-ethoxy dimethacrylate
BisEMA bisphenol-A-ethoxy dimethacrylate
UDMA urethane dimethacrylate
CS Compressive strength
FS Flexural Strength
DCRC Dual cure resin cement

References

  1. Fehrenbach, J.; Münchow, E.A.; Isolan, C.P.; Brondani, L.P.; Bergoli, C.D. Structural Reliability and Bonding Performance of Resin Luting Agents to Dentin and Enamel. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 2021, 107, 102863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Borges, M.H.R.; Dias, C.G.T.; Alencar, C.D.M.; Silva, C.M.; Esteves, R.A. Evaluation of Physical-Mechanical Properties of Self-Adhesive versus Conventional Resin Cements. Braz. J. Oral Sci. 2020, 19, e208204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miotti, L.; Follak, A.; Montagner, A.; Pozzobon, R.; Da Silveira, B.; Susin, A. Is Conventional Resin Cement Adhesive Performance to Dentin Better Than Self-Adhesive? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laboratory Studies. Operative Dentistry 2020, 45, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Peumans, M.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Lambrechts, P.; Vanherle, G. Porcelain Veneers: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Dentistry 2000, 28, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Heboyan, A.; Vardanyan, A.; Karobari, M.I.; Marya, A.; Avagyan, T.; Tebyaniyan, H.; Mustafa, M.; Rokaya, D.; Avetisyan, A. Dental Luting Cements: An Updated Comprehensive Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hill, E.E. Dental Cements for Definitive Luting: A Review and Practical Clinical Considerations. Dental Clinics of North America 2007, 51, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leung, G.K.-H.; Wong, A.W.-Y.; Chu, C.-H.; Yu, O.Y. Update on Dental Luting Materials. Dentistry Journal 2022, 10, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hill, E.; Lott, J. A Clinically Focused Discussion of Luting Materials. Australian Dental Journal 2011, 56, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ferracane, J.L. Resin Composite—State of the Art. Dental Materials 2011, 27, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peutzfeldt, A. Resin Composites in Dentistry: The Monomer Systems. European J Oral Sciences 1997, 105, 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mikhail, S.S.; Schricker, S.R.; Azer, S.S.; Brantley, W.A.; Johnston, W.M. Optical Characteristics of Contemporary Dental Composite Resin Materials. Journal of Dentistry 2013, 41, 771–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sheoran, L.; Sehrawat, M.; Fatima, D.; Nandal, N.; Budhiraja, D. A Literature Review on Selection of Dental Cement in Dentistry. IJOHD 2021, 7, 94–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Materials for Adhesion and Luting- Craig’s restorative dental materials- 14th Edition, 2019, 273-294. [CrossRef]
  14. Hofmann, N.; Papsthart, G.; Hugo, B.; Klaiber, B. Comparison of Photo-Activation versus Chemical or Dual-Curing of Resin-Based Luting Cements Regarding Flexural Strength, Modulus and Surface Hardness. J Oral Rehabil 2001, 28, 1022–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schricker, S.R. Composite Resin Polymerization and Relevant Parameters. In Orthodontic Applications of Biomaterials; Elsevier, 2017; pp. 153–170 ISBN 978-0-08-100383-1.
  16. Rosenstiel, S.F.; Land, M.F.; Crispin, B.J. Dental Luting Agents: A Review of the Current Literature. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1998, 80, 280–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Milleding, P. Microleakage of Indirect Composite Inlays: An in Vitro Comparison with the Direct Technique. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1992, 50, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gargari, M.; Gloria, F.; Napoli, E.; Pujia, A.M. Zirconia: Cementation of Prosthetic Restorations. Literature Review. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2010, 3, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liang, T.; Hu, X.; Zhu, L.; Pan, X.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, J. Comparative in Vitro Study of Cementing Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2016, 116, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alshabib, A.; AlDosary, K.; Algamaiah, H. A Comprehensive Review of Resin Luting Agents: Bonding Mechanisms and Polymerisation Reactions. The Saudi Dental Journal 2024, 36, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cramer, N.B.; Couch, C.L.; Schreck, K.M.; Carioscia, J.A.; Boulden, J.E.; Stansbury, J.W.; Bowman, C.N. Investigation of Thiol-Ene and Thiol-Ene–Methacrylate Based Resins as Dental Restorative Materials. Dental Materials 2010, 26, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maletin, A.; Knežević, M.J.; Koprivica, D.Đ.; Veljović, T.; Puškar, T.; Milekić, B.; Ristić, I. Dental Resin-Based Luting Materials—Review. Polymers 2023, 15, 4156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cramer, N.B.; Stansbury, J.W.; Bowman, C.N. Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials. J Dent Res 2011, 90, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oh, S.; Shin, S.-M.; Kim, H.-J.; Paek, J.; Kim, S.-J.; Yoon, T.H.; Kim, S.-Y. Influence of Glass-Based Dental Ceramic Type and Thickness with Identical Shade on the Light Transmittance and the Degree of Conversion of Resin Cement. Int J Oral Sci 2018, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, M.-H. Update on Dental Nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010, 89, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yadav, R.; Lee, H.; Lee, J.-H.; Singh, R.K.; Lee, H.-H. A Comprehensive Review: Physical, Mechanical, and Tribological Characterization of Dental Resin Composite Materials. Tribology International 2023, 179, 108102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lung, C.Y.K.; Sarfraz, Z.; Habib, A.; Khan, A.S.; Matinlinna, J.P. Effect of Silanization of Hydroxyapatite Fillers on Physical and Mechanical Properties of a Bis-GMA Based Resin Composite. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 2016, 54, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Won, S.; Ko, K.-H.; Park, C.-J.; Cho, L.-R.; Huh, Y.-H. Effect of Barium Silicate Filler Content on Mechanical Properties of Resin Nanoceramics for Additive Manufacturing. J Adv Prosthodont 2022, 14, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Abdalla, M.M.; Sayed, O.; Lung, C.Y.K.; Rajasekar, V.; Yiu, C.K.Y. Applications of Bioactive Strontium Compounds in Dentistry. JFB 2024, 15, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Bapat, R.A.; Yang, H.J.; Chaubal, T.V.; Dharmadhikari, S.; Abdulla, A.M.; Arora, S.; Rawal, S.; Kesharwani, P. Review on Synthesis, Properties and Multifarious Therapeutic Applications of Nanostructured Zirconia in Dentistry. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 12773–12793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Batul, R.; Makandar, S.D.; Nawi, M.A.B.A.; Basheer, S.N.; Albar, N.H.; Assiry, A.A.; Luke, A.M.; Karobari, M.I. Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness, Water Sorption and Solubility of Biodentin and Nano-Zirconia-Modified Biodentin and FTIR Analysis. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piconi, C.; Maccauro, G. Zirconia as a Ceramic Biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999, 20, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Subhani, T.; Latif, M.; Ahmad, I.; Rakha, S.A.; Ali, N.; Khurram, A.A. Mechanical Performance of Epoxy Matrix Hybrid Nanocomposites Containing Carbon Nanotubes and Nanodiamonds. Materials & Design 2015, 87, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, J.-Y.; Lim, D.-P.; Lim, D.-S. Tribological Behavior of PTFE Nanocomposite Films Reinforced with Carbon Nanoparticles. Composites Part B: Engineering 2007, 38, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Neitzel, I.; Mochalin, V.; Bares, J.A.; Carpick, R.W.; Erdemir, A.; Gogotsi, Y. Tribological Properties of Nanodiamond-Epoxy Composites. Tribol Lett 2012, 47, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bogatyrenko, S.; Kryshtal, A. Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Ag, Cu and Diamond Nanoparticles: In Situ TEM Diffraction and EELS Measurements. Materials Characterization 2021, 178, 111296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khan, M.; Tiehu, L.; Zhao, T.K.; Khurram, A.A.; Khan, I.; Ullah, A.; Hayat, A.; Lone, A.L.; Ali, F.; Iqbal, S. Comparative Study of the Ball Milling and Acid Treatment of Functionalized Nanodiamond Composites. International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 2018, 73, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, M.; Khurram, A.A.; Tiehu, L.; Zhao, T.K.; Xiong, C.; Ali, Z.; Ali, N.; Ullah, A. Reinforcement Effect of Acid Modified Nanodiamond in Epoxy Matrix for Enhanced Mechanical and Electromagnetic Properties. Diamond and Related Materials 2017, 78, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vereshchagin, A.L.; Sakovich, G.V. Structure of Detonation Nanodiamonds. Mendeleev Communications 2001, 11, 39–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Blank, V.; Popov, M.; Pivovarov, G.; Lvova, N.; Terentev, S. Mechanical Properties of Different Types of Diamond. Diamond and Related Materials 1999, 8, 1531–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ma, M.; Ma, H.; Hu, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhuge, Z.; Zhang, S.; Luo, K.; Gao, Y.; et al. Ultrastrong Conductive in Situ Composite Composed of Nanodiamond Incoherently Embedded in Disordered Multilayer Graphene. Nat. Mater. 2023, 22, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, B.; Zhang, S.; Duan, S.; Song, J.; Li, X.; Yang, B.; Chen, X.; Wang, C.; Yi, W.; Wang, Z.; et al. Enhanced Strength of Nano-Polycrystalline Diamond by Introducing Boron Carbide Interlayers at the Grain Boundaries. Nanoscale Adv. 2020, 2, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Klein, C.A.; Cardinale, G.F. Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio of CVD Diamond. Diamond and Related Materials 1993, 2, 918–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kenneth, J. Kenneth J. Anusavice, Chiayi Shen, H. Ralph Rawls-Phillips' Science of Dental Materials (11th Edition). ISBN: 9781455748136.
  45. Ferrari, M.; Carvalho, C.A.; Goracci, C.; Antoniolli, F.; Mazzoni, A.; Mazzotti, G.; Cadenaro, M.; Breschi, L. Influence of Luting Material Filler Content on Post Cementation. J Dent Res 2009, 88, 951–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Peutzfeldt, A. Dual-Cure Resin Ceme: In Vitro Wear and Effect of Quantity of Remaining Double Bonds, Filler Volume, and Light Curing. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1995, 53, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Furtos, G.; Baldea, B.; Silaghi-Dumitrescu, L.; Moldovan, M.; Prejmerean, C.; Nica, L. Influence of Inorganic Filler Content on the Radiopacity of Dental Resin Cements. Dent. Mater. J. 2012, 31, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, R.; Habib, E.; Zhu, X.X. Application of Close-Packed Structures in Dental Resin Composites. Dental Materials 2017, 33, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wang, R.; Habib, E.; Zhu, X.X. Evaluation of the Filler Packing Structures in Dental Resin Composites: From Theory to Practice. Dental Materials 2018, 34, 1014–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tanimoto, Y.; Kitagawa, T.; Aida, M.; Nishiyama, N. Experimental and Computational Approach for Evaluating the Mechanical Characteristics of Dental Composite Resins with Various Filler Sizes. Acta Biomaterialia 2006, 2, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Masouras, K.; Silikas, N.; Watts, D.C. Correlation of Filler Content and Elastic Properties of Resin-Composites. Dental Materials 2008, 24, 932–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kawaguchi, M.; Fukushima, T.; Horibe, T.; Watanabe, T. [Effect of filler system on the mechanical properties of light-cured composite resins. II. Mechanical properties of visible light-cured composite resins with binary filler system]. Shika Zairyo Kikai 1989, 8, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Lim, B.-S.; Ferracane, J.L.; Condon, J.R.; Adey, J.D. Effect of Filler Fraction and Filler Surface Treatment on Wear of Microfilled Composites. Dental Materials 2002, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lang, B.R.; Jaarda, M.; Wang, R. -F. Filler Particle Size and Composite Resin Classification Systems. J of Oral Rehabilitation 1992, 19, 569–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nunes, T.G.; Pereira, S.G.; Kalachandra, S. Effect of Treated Filler Loading on the Photopolymerization Inhibition and Shrinkage of a Dimethacrylate Matrix. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 2008, 19, 1881–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gonçalves, F.; Kawano, Y.; Braga, R.R. Contraction Stress Related to Composite Inorganic Content. Dental Materials 2010, 26, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sümer, E.; Değer, Y. Contemporary Permanent Luting Agents Used in Dentistry: A Literature Review. Int Dent Res 2011, 1, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lundgren, D.; Laurell, L. Occlusal Force Pattern during Chewing and Biting in Dentitions Restored with Fixed Bridges of Cross-arch Extension: II. Unilateral Posterior Two-unit Cantilevers. J of Oral Rehabilitation 1986, 13, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ferracane, J.L.; Berge, H.X.; Condon, J.R. In Vitro Aging of Dental Composites in Water? Effect of Degree of Conversion, Filler Volume, and Filler/Matrix Coupling. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1998, 42, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spanoudakis, J.; Young, R.J. Crack Propagation in a Glass Particle-Filled Epoxy Resin: Part 1 Effect of Particle Volume Fraction and Size. J Mater Sci 1984, 19, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’Alpino, P.H.P.; Silva, M.S.; Vismara, M.V.G.; Di Hipólito, V.; Miranda González, A.H.; De Oliveira Graeff, C.F. The Effect of Polymerization Mode on Monomer Conversion, Free Radical Entrapment, and Interaction with Hydroxyapatite of Commercial Self-Adhesive Cements. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 2015, 46, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, H.; Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Tu, W.; Li, Q.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, Z. Nano- SiO2 / PVC Composite Material: A Review on Modification, Preparation, Properties, and Applications. J of Applied Polymer Sci 2025, 142, e57605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mitra, S.B.; Wu, D.; Holmes, B.N. An Application of Nanotechnology in Advanced Dental Materials. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2003, 134, 1382–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ahuja, D.; Akhila, M.R.; Singh, A.K.; Batra, P. Impact of Nanoparticles on Dental Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Int Oral Health 2024, 16, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Harsch, M.; Karger-Kocsis, J.; Holst, M. Influence of Fillers and Additives on the Cure Kinetics of an Epoxy/Anhydride Resin. European Polymer Journal 2007, 43, 1168–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Velo, M.M.A.C.; Nascimento, T.R.L.; Scotti, C.K.; Bombonatti, J.F.S.; Furuse, A.Y.; Silva, V.D.; Simões, T.A.; Medeiros, E.S.; Blaker, J.J.; Silikas, N.; et al. Improved Mechanical Performance of Self-Adhesive Resin Cement Filled with Hybrid Nanofibers-Embedded with Niobium Pentoxide. Dental Materials 2019, 35, e272–e285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Marchewka, A.; Ziolkowski, P.; García Galán, S. Real-Time Prediction of Early Concrete Compressive Strength Using AI and Hydration Monitoring. Sci Rep 2025, 15, 15463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ostrowski, D.; Bryson, K. The Physical Properties of Meteorites. Planetary and Space Science 2019, 165, 148–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Levartovsky, S.; Kuyinu, E.; Georgescu, M.; Goldstein, G.R. A Comparison of the Diametral Tensile Strength, the Flexural Strength, and the Compressive Strength of Two New Core Materials to a Silver Alloy-Reinforced Glass-Inomer Material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1994, 72, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Cho, G.C.; Kaneko, L.M.; Donovan, T.E.; White, S.N. Diametral and Compressive Strength of Dental Core Materials. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999, 82, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saygili, G.; Mahmali, S.M. Comparative Study of the Physical Properties of Core Materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002, 22, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. El-Kemary, B.M.; El-Borady, O.M.; Abdel Gaber, S.A.; Beltagy, T.M. Role of nano-zirconia in the Mechanical Properties Improvement of Resin Cement Used for Tooth Fragment Reattachment. Polymer Composites 2021, 42, 3307–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chung, S.M.; Yap, A.U.J.; Chandra, S.P.; Lim, C.T. Flexural Strength of Dental Composite Restoratives: Comparison of Biaxial and Three-point Bending Test. J Biomed Mater Res 2004, 71B, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sabane, A.V.; Patil, R.V.; Sardar, S.S.; Jadhav, R.D.; Patil, A.A.; Sardar, C.S. In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Monolithic Zirconia Copings Influenced by Luting Agents and Finish Line Design. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 2022, 23, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Beketova, A.; Tzanakakis, E.-G.C.; Vouvoudi, E.; Anastasiadis, K.; Rigos, A.E.; Pandoleon, P.; Bikiaris, D.; Tzoutzas, I.G.; Kontonasaki, E. Zirconia Nanoparticles as Reinforcing Agents for Contemporary Dental Luting Cements: Physicochemical Properties and Shear Bond Strength to Monolithic Zirconia. IJMS 2023, 24, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kundie, F.; Azhari, C.H. Effects of Filler Size on the Mechanical Properties of Polymer-Filled Dental Composites: A Review of Recent Developments. JPS 2018, 29, 141–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Akiba, S.; Takamizawa, T.; Tsujimoto, A.; Moritake, N.; Ishii, R.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Influence of Different Curing Modes on Flexural Properties, Fracture Toughness, and Wear Behavior of Dual-Cure Provisional Resin-Based Composites. Dent. Mater. J. 2019, 38, 728–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Johnson, G.H.; Lepe, X.; Zhang, H.; Wataha, J.C. Retention of Metal-Ceramic Crowns With Contemporary Dental Cements. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2009, 140, 1125–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Raja Awang, R.A.; Islam, M.S.; Jamayet, N.; Ismail, N.H. Flexural Strength and Viscosity of Dental Luting Composite Reinforced with Zirconia and Alumina. Bangladesh J Med Sci 2024, 23, 1048–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hiremath, G.; Horati, P.; Naik, B. Evaluation and Comparison of Flexural Strength of Cention N with Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement and Composite - An in Vitro Study. J Conserv Dent 2022, 25, 288–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nicholson, J.W.; Sidhu, S.K.; Czarnecka, B. Enhancing the Mechanical Properties of Glass-Ionomer Dental Cements: A Review. Materials 2020, 13, 2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Geramipanah, F. Comparison of Flexural Strength of Resin Cements After Storing in Different Media and Bleaching Agents. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 2015, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kaptan, A.; Oznurhan, F.; Candan, M. In Vitro Comparison of Surface Roughness, Flexural, and Microtensile Strength of Various Glass-Ionomer-Based Materials and a New Alkasite Restorative Material. Polymers 2023, 15, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Panchanadikar, N.T.; Kunte, S.S.; Khare, M.D. Comparison of Bond Strength, Flexural Strength, and Hardness of Conventional Composites and Self-Adhesive Composites: An in Vitro Study. IJPCDR 2016, 3, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gad, M.; Rahoma, A.; Al-Thobity, A.M.; ArRejaie, A. Influence of Incorporation of ZrO2 Nanoparticles on the Repair Strength of Polymethyl Methacrylate Denture Bases. IJN 2016, Volume 11, 5633–5643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ayad, N.M.; Badawi, M.F.; Fatah, A.A. EFFECT OF REINFORCEMENT OF HIGH-IMPACT ACRYLIC RESIN WITH ZIRCONIA ON SOME PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES. Archives of Oral Research 2008, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Abushowmi, T.H.; AlZaher, Z.A.; Almaskin, D.F.; Qaw, M.S.; Abualsaud, R.; Akhtar, S.; Al-Thobity, A.M.; Al-Harbi, F.A.; Gad, M.M.; Baba, N.Z. Comparative Effect of Glass Fiber and Nano-Filler Addition on Denture Repair Strength. Journal of Prosthodontics 2020, 29, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fouda, S.M.; Gad, M.M.; Ellakany, P.; A. Al Ghamdi, M.; Khan, S.Q.; Akhtar, S.; Ali, M.S.; Al-Harbi, F.A. Flexural Properties, Impact Strength, and Hardness of Nanodiamond-Modified PMMA Denture Base Resin. International Journal of Biomaterials 2022, 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Al-Harbi, F.A.; Abdel-Halim, M.S.; Gad, M.M.; Fouda, S.M.; Baba, N.Z.; AlRumaih, H.S.; Akhtar, S. Effect of Nanodiamond Addition on Flexural Strength, Impact Strength, and Surface Roughness of PMMA Denture Base. Journal of Prosthodontics 2019, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Preprints 186458 g001
Figure 1. Systematic flowchart of methodology.
Figure 1. Systematic flowchart of methodology.
Preprints 186458 g001
Preprints 186458 g002
Figure 2. a) Testing CS, b) Testing FS.
Figure 2. a) Testing CS, b) Testing FS.
Preprints 186458 g002
Table 1. Mechanical properties of nanozirconia.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of nanozirconia.
Mechanical qualities Value
Density 6.05g/cm2
Hard strength 1200HV
Flexural strength 900-1200MPa
Compressive strength 2000MPa
Resistance to fracture 7-10MPam1/2
Elastic modulus 210GPa
Thermal expansion co-efficient 11*10-61/K
Table 2. Mechanical properties of nanodiamond.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of nanodiamond.
Mechanical qualities Value References
Density 3.515 g cm–3 [39]
Hard strength 56 GPA-257 GPA
10 on Mohs scale		 [35,40]
Compressive strength ~54 GPa [41]
Fracture toughness (≈8–18 MPa·m^0.5) [42]
Young’s modulus 1050 GPa [43]
Thermal expansion co-efficient ≈1.1 × 10−5 K−1 [36]
Table 5. Volume% to Weight% for nanozirconia.
Table 5. Volume% to Weight% for nanozirconia.
Material Volume% Weight mg Weight%
RelyX U200 90% 978 88.90%
Nano zirconia 10% 122 11.10%
Table 6. Volume% to Weight % for nanodiamond.
Table 6. Volume% to Weight % for nanodiamond.
Material Volume% Weight mg Weight%
RelyX U200 90% 1067mg 97%
Nano diamond 10% 33mg 3%
Table 11. Summary of discussion.
Table 11. Summary of discussion.
Properties Findings of Current Study Advantages / Positive Outcomes Disadvantages / Negative Outcomes Risks / Limitations Comparison with Previous Studies


Compressive Strength (CS) 		Group 1 (Control): 121.12 ± 19.35 MPa
Group 2 (10% Nano-ZrO₂): 132.18 ± 27.93 MPa
Group 3 (10% Nano-Diamond): 126.21 ± 12.54 MPa p = 0.505 (NS)		 •Slight increase in CS in both modified groups compared to control.
•Supports possibility of reinforcement.		 •No statistically significant difference between groups (p > 0.05).
•Limited mechanical benefit.		 •High NP (10 vol%) may cause particle agglomeration, affecting homogeneity and polymerization.
•Possible interference with base-catalyst ratio altering curing kinetics.		 •Contradicts prior study [56], which found significant improvement in CS with higher NZ addition.
•Novelty: First study testing nanodiamond in resin luting cement hence no prior reference available for direct comparison.


Flexural Strength (FS) 		Group 1: 66.92 ± 5.27 MPa
Group 2: 72.50 ± 10.40 MPa
Group 3: 71.06 ± 6.30 MPa p = 0.256 (NS)		 •Minor increase in FS in both modified groups, showing potential for reinforcement.
•Confirms filler addition does not adversely affect cement integrity.		 •Statistically insignificant improvement (p > 0.05).
•High filler content may increase stiffness without significant strength gain.		 •Agglomeration at 10 vol% may reduce efficiency of stress transfer.
•Higher rigidity is unsuitable for luting cements as it requires some elasticity.		 •Contradicts studies [69,70,71] reporting significant enhancement in FS with ZrO₂ NPs.
•Consistent with PMMA studies [72,73], where low ND concentration improved FS more effectively than higher concentrations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated