الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 130 |  |  |
| | | from | 130 | | |
Abstract
This laboratory study •was designed to investigate ormocer restorative materials versus hybrid composite regarding biocompatibility and some properties such as compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, bonding to tooth structure, wear resistance, linear thermal expansion ~nd water sorption.
A total of 105 speCImens of light cured restorative materials were prepared. Two brands of ormocer restorative material and one brand of themicTohybrid composite. The samples were prepared In specified shape to suit the property under investigation. (Strips for biocompatibility, wear resistance and thermal coefficient of expansion, cylinders for compreSSIve strength and modulus of elasticity, disks for tensile strength, water sorption and density)
The tests were conducted and results tabulated, computed and statistically analyzed.
Conclusion
from the results of this study, the following conclusions could be drawn:
1- The ormocer restorative materials exhibited the biocompatibility, compressive strength and tensile and the least linear thermal coefficient of xpansion, water sorption and water solubility.
2- One brand of ormocer restorative material (Admira) greater biocompatibility, compreSSIve strength, strength, modulus of elasticity, wear resistance, to tooth structure. Thermal coefficient of pansion, water sorption and.’ solubility were less than the her ormocer brand (Definit).
3- The hybrid composite showed superior modulus of asticity, bonding to tooth structure and wear resistance er one brand of ormocer restorative material (Definit).
4- Properties of commercial brands of composite to the filler and manufacturers’ additives. The difications of incorporating of fillers backbone to the anic matrix increase the strength of composite.