Analytic hierarchy process‐technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: A multi criteria decision‐making technique to select the best dental restorative composite materials

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the optimal selection of a variety of dental composites using a hybrid analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) technique as a multi criteria decision‐making (MCDM) technique under a set o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Polymer composites Vol. 42; no. 12; pp. 6867 - 6877
Main Author: Yadav, Ramkumar
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.12.2021
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Subjects:
AHP
Aluminum oxide
Analytic hierarchy process
Composite materials
Compressive strength
Criteria
Dental cement
Dental materials
dental restorative composite materials
Diamond pyramid hardness
Flexural strength
MCDM
Modulus of rupture in bending
Ranking
Similarity
TOPSIS
ISSN:0272-8397, 1548-0569
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this paper is to investigate the optimal selection of a variety of dental composites using a hybrid analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) technique as a multi criteria decision‐making (MCDM) technique under a set of conflict Performance Defining Criteria (PDCs). The resinous matrix of the dental composite was fabricated by Bis‐GMA (51 wt%), TEGDMA (48 wt%), CQ (0.2 wt%), and EDMAB (0.8 wt%). Five dental composite compositions were created utilizing hybrid nTiO2‐Al2O3 particles with varying nTiO2 content (0, 2, 4, 6, 8 wt%). According to AHP, the following PDCs are listed in order: Cost (PDC‐13) > Vickers hardness (PDC‐4) > compressive strength (PDC‐1) > depth of cure (PDC‐5) > flexural modulus (PDC‐3) > flexural strength (PDC‐2) > degree of conversion (PDC‐11) > material stability (PDC‐12) > void content (PDC‐8) > water sorption (PDC‐9) > Density (PDC‐7) (PDC‐6). According to TOPSIS, the following are the rankings: nT2 > nT0 > nT4 > nT6 > nT8. The experimental results are connected to the ranking of several sets of dental formulations. As a result, the AHP‐TOPSIS method is one of the finest MCDM strategies for ranking under diverse PDCs.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0272-8397
1548-0569
DOI:10.1002/pc.26346