. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.

Published in final edited form as: Dent Mater. 2017 Mar 28;33(6):621–629. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.03.010

Table 3.

Comparison of resin and composite flexural modulus, flexural strength, flexural toughness (or work of fracture), and energy required to strain the experimental materials to 11% without fracture from the three-point bend testing. Within each category of columns, the letters indicate statistically significant differences (p<0.05) via a one-way ANOVA and a Tukey’s post-hoc test.

	BisGMA/TEGDMA			CuAAC
Filler loading [%]	Flexural modulus [GPa]	Flexural strength [MPa]	Toughness [MJ m⁻³]	Flexural modulus [GPa]	Flexural strength [MPa]	Energy to strain 11% [MJ m⁻³]
0	3.5±0.5^D	131±19^A	3.7±0.8^C	3.1±0.04^D	105±1^A,B	8.0±0.1^B
20	3.9±0.3^C,D	98±9^B	1.8±0.4^D	3.7±0.2^D	96±5^B	8.0±0.4^B
40	4.9±0.3^B	89±23^B	1.1±0.6^D	4.5±0.3^B,C	99±6^B	8.8±0.5^B
60	6.6±0.3^A	101±18^B	1.1±0.3^D	6.1±0.7^A	107±9^A,B	10±1^A