journal article·2014Open access

Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin

Jian-min HAN, Hongyu ZHANG, Hyo-Sun CHOE, Hong LIN, Gang ZHENG, Guang HONG

Dental Materials Journal· Volume 33· Issue 6

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the abrasive wear and surface roughness of 20 currently available commercial dental composite resins, including nanofilled, supra-nanofilled, nanohybrid and microhybrid composite resins. The volume loss, maximum vertical loss, surface roughness (R(a)) and surface morphology [Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)] were determined after wear. The inorganic filler content was determined by thermogravimetric analysis. The result showed that the volume loss and vertical loss varied among the materials. The coefficients of determination (R(2)) of wear volume loss and filler content (wt%) was 0.283. SEM micrographs revealed nanofilled composites displayed a relatively uniform wear surfaces with nanoclusters protrusion, while the performance of nanohybrid composites varied. The abrasive wear resistance of contemporary dental composite resins is material-dependent and cannot be deduced from its category, filler loading and composite matrix; The abrasive wear resistance of some flowable composites is comparable to the universal/posterior composite resins.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (45)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.00710.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007 ↗
2. 2) Utterodt A, Ruppert K, Schaub M, Diefenbach C, Reischl K, Hohmann A, Eck M, Schönhof N. Dental composites with Tricyclo [5.2.02.6] decane derivatives. European Patent EP1935393, assignee: Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, 2008.
3. 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.005410.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054 ↗
4. 4) Ure D, Harris J. Nanotechnology in dentistry: reduction to practice. Dent Update 2003; 30: 10-15.10.12968/denu.2003.30.1.10 ↗
5. 5) Weir MD, Moreau JL, Levine ED, Strassler HE, Chow LC, Xu HH. Nanocomposite containing CaF (2) nanoparticles: thermal cycling, wear and long-term water-aging. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 642-652.10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.007 ↗
6. 6) Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011; 39: 643-647.10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.00510.1016/j.dental.2006.02.005 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.02010.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020 ↗
9. 9) ISO. Dental materials-guidance on testing of wear. Part 2.Wear by two- and/or three-body contact. Technical Specification No 14569-2, 2001.
10. 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.00210.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002 ↗
11. 11) Xu HC, Vingerling PA, Liu WY, Zheng G, Wang T. Wear of composite resin in vitro: a testing machine with rubber plate. Preliminary results. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 107-115.
12. 10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.00310.1016/j.dental.2004.05.003 ↗
13. 13) Han JM, Lin H, Zheng G, Shinya A, Gomi H, Shinya A, Lin J. Effect of nanofiller on wear resistance and surface roughness of resin composites. Chin J Dent Res 2012; 15: 41-47.
14. 14) Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degree of cure. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 1508-1516.10.1177/00220345970760081401 ↗
15. 10.1016/0300-5712(92)90125-V10.1016/0300-5712(92)90125-V ↗
16. 16) ISO. Dental materials - Guidance on testing of wear resistance - Part 1: Wear by tooth brushing. Technical Specification No 14569-1, 2007.
17. 17) Leinfelder KF, Suzuki S. In vitro wear device for determining posterior composite wear. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 1347-1353.10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0406 ↗
18. 10.1177/0022034586065005040110.1177/00220345860650050401 ↗
19. 10.4012/dmj.28.70810.4012/dmj.28.708 ↗
20. 10.1177/1045441195006004030110.1177/10454411950060040301 ↗
21. 21) Turssi CP, Saad JR, Duarte SL, Rodrigues AL. Composite surfaces after finishing and polishing techniques. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 136-138.
22. 10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.01110.1016/j.dental.2004.10.011 ↗
23. 23) Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 269-274.
24. 24) Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1302-1314.10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.001 ↗
25. 25) Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: Five-year clinical wear performances. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 692-700.10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.012 ↗
26. 26) Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Invest 2006; 10: 119-125.10.1007/s00784-006-0041-8 ↗
27. 27) Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: Clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 750-759.10.1016/j.dental.2008.12.003 ↗
28. 28) Turssi CP, Faraoni-Romano JJ, de Menezes M, Serra MC. Comparative study of the wear behavior of composites for posterior restorations. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 143-147.10.1007/s10856-006-0673-x ↗
29. 29) Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 1533-1540.10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0083 ↗
30. 30) Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resinbased composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1581-1589.10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0103 ↗
31. 31) Shi L, Wang X, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Ren Y, Chen Z.Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 11-19.10.2341/09-027CR ↗
32. 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90071-J10.1016/0109-5641(92)90071-J ↗
33. 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.027410.14219/jada.archive.1998.0274 ↗
34. 10.3109/00016357.2012.73440510.3109/00016357.2012.734405 ↗
35. 35) Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Kanehira M, Finger WJ. Two- and three-body wear of composite resins. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1261-1270.10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.008 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.10.00310.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.10.003 ↗
37. 37) Guiraldo RD, Consani S, Consani RL, Berger SB, Mendes WB, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Comparison of silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins on the curing light transmission. Braz Dent J 2010; 21: 538-542.10.1590/S0103-64402010000600010 ↗
38. 10.1177/0022034597076007110110.1177/00220345970760071101 ↗
39. 39) Schmidt C, Ilie N. The mechanical stability of nano-hybrid composites with new methacrylate monomers for matrix compositions. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 152-159.10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.007 ↗
40. 10.4012/dmj.18.45310.4012/dmj.18.453 ↗
41. 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00103-210.1016/S0109-5641(00)00103-2 ↗
42. 42) Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo Ck, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 100-104
43. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x ↗
44. 10.2341/06-910.2341/06-9 ↗
45. 45) Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 617-626.