IN VITRO WEAR OF THREE BULK FILL COMPOSITES AND ENAMEL
252
different wear testing devices, it is not possible to
directly compare the volumetric wear data from
different approaches. Therefore, only studies done
with Willitec/Mechatronik wear testing machines can
be used to do direct comparisons with the present
study. Lazaridou et al. 33 found for Tetric EvoCeram
0.33 mm 3 , while Tetric N Ceram Bulk-fill showed
0.66 mm 3 in the present study, which is substantially
higher. Differences in the methods may explain these
different findings. Lazaridou et al were loading the
samples in water at 37° C, while in the present study
the samples were thermocycled, which represents
an additional stress.
Heintze et al 2006 27 have used almost the same
approach as used in this study and measured for
Tetric N Ceram Bulk-fill, approx. 0.6 mm 3 . D’Arcangelo
et al. 22 reported mean wear values for different
direct composites between 0.529 ±0.139 mm 3 and
1.425±0.245 mm 3 . However, they used a different
antagonist material (zirconia) and shape (round tip
3 mm diameter). Hahnel et al. 34 measured the wear
of 16 different resin-based restorative materials and
found that the wear of Quixfil was approximately
three times that of Tetric Ceram, which confirms the
findings of this study.
As all materials that have crosslinking in the
resin matrix, flowable composites express some
viscoelastic properties. 35 Thus, bulk-fill composites
are not exempt from this property, as has been shown
by Papadogiannis et al. 36 Stressing the composite
in the chewing simulator may have created some
creep, which could be seen as a confounder of the
true wear that was measured in the present study.
5. Conclusions
In vitro wear of Tetric N Ceram Bulkfil was in the
expected range and equal to X-tra fil. The wear of
QuiXX was 2.7 times higher. Enamel was worn the
least. The antagonist wear was significantly lower,
less than 50% of the wear of the composites and the
enamel.
Author contributions
Equal contribution to the paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors declare that the research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial
relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.
References
1.
Finan L, Palin WM, Moskwa N, et al. The influence of
irradiation potential on the degree of conversion and
mechanical properties of two bulk-fill flowable RBC base
materials. Dent Mater. 2013;29(8):906-912. doi: 10.1016/j.
dental.2013.05.008. [Full text links] [PubMed] Google
Scholar (80) Scopus (43)
2. van Dijken JW and Pallesen U. A randomized controlled
three year evaluation of "bulk-filled" posterior resin
restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology.
Dent
Mater.
2014;30:e245-51.
doi:
10.1016/j.
dental.2014.05.028. [Full text links] [PubMed] Google
Scholar (75) Scopus (44)
3. Benetti A, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, Pedersen
M, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization
contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent.
2015;40(2):190-200. doi: 10.2341/13-324-L. [Full text links]
[PubMed] Google Scholar (90) Scopus (39)
4. Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization shrinkage
and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly
filled flowable resin. Oper Dent. 2015; 40(2):172-180 doi:
10.2341/13-307-L. Epub 2014 Aug 19. [Full text links]
[PubMed] Google Scholar (77) Scopus (33)
5. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical
properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites.
Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:227-35. doi: 10.1007/s00784-
012-0702-8. Epub 2012 Mar 14. [Full text links] [PubMed]
Google Scholar Scopus (85)
6. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, et al. Physico-
mechanical characteristics of commercially available
bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014;42(8):993-1000. doi:
10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.009. [Full text links] [PubMed]
Google Scholar (159) Scopus (67)
7. Kumagai RY, Zeidan LC, Rodrigues JA, Reis AF, Roulet
JF. Bond strength of a flowable bulk-fill resin composite
in Class II MOD cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):427-
432. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35012. [Full text links] [PubMed]
Google Scholar (13) Scopus (6)
8. Todd JC, Wanner M. The Future of Composite Technology.
Scientific Documentation. Schaan: Ivoclar Vivadent; 2014.
9. Polydorou O, Manolakis A, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Evaluation of
the curing depth of two translucent composite materials
using a halogen and two LED curing units. Clin Oral Invest.
2008;12(1):45-51. doi: 10.1007/s00784-007-0142-z. [Full
text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar (45) Scopus (18)
10. Moszner N, Fischer U, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger
V. Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light
photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater. 2008;
24(7):901-907. doi: 10.1016/j.dental. 2007.11.004. [Full
text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar (131) Scopus (87)
11. Roulet JF. Degradation of dental polymers. Basel: Karger;
1987, 228p (doi:10.1159/000412772) [Full text links]
12. Lutz F, Phillips RW, Roulet J-F, Imfeld T. [Composites--
classification and assessment]. [Article in German]. SSO
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd. 1983;93(10):914-929.
[PubMed] Google Scholar (75) Scopus (9)
13. Lendenmann U, Wanner M. Tetric EvoCeram, Scientific
Documentation. Schaan: Ivoclar Vivadent R&D; 2011
14. Ilie N, Kebler A, Durner J. Influence of various irradiation
processes on the mechanical properties and polymerisation
kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent.
2013;41(8):695-702. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.008.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar (82) Scopus (43)
15. Remington RD, Schork MA. Statistics with applications
to biological and health sciences. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc. ; 1970 Google Scholar (1327)
16. Calheiros FC, Kawano Y, Stansbury JW, Braga RR.
Influence of radiant exposure on contraction stress,
degree of conversion and mechanical properties of
resin composites. Dent Mater. 2006;22(9):799-803. doi:
10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.008 [Full text links] [PubMed]
Google Scholar (103) Scopus (65)
17. Fan PL, Schumacher RM, Azzolin K, Geary R, Eichmiller FC.
Curing-light intensity and depth of cure of resin-based
composites tested according to international standards. J
Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133(4):429-434. doi.org/10.14219/
jada.archive.2002.0200 [Full text links] [PubMed] Google
Scholar (205) Scopus (97)
18. Ilie N, Hilton TJ, Heintze SD, et al. Academy of Dental
Materials guidance – Resin composites: Part I –Mechanical
properties. Dent Mater. 2017;33(8):880–894.
doi:
10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.013. [Full text links] [PubMed]
Google Scholar (4)
19. Leinfelder KF, Beaudreau RW, Mazer RB. An in vitro
device for predicting clinical wear. Quintessence Int.
1989;20(10):755-761. [PubMed] Google Scholar (97)
Scopus (80)
20. Koottathhape N, Takahashi H, Iwaqsaki N, Kanehira M,
Finger WJ. Quantitative wear and wear damage analysis
of composite resin in vitro. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater.
2014;29:508-516. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.10.003.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar (13) Scopus (6)
21. Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation
devices and methods. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(8):712-
734. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002 [Full text links]
[PubMed] Google Scholar (210) Scopus (137)
22. D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, et al. Wear properties
of a novel resin composite to human enamel and other
restorative materials. Operative Dent. 2014;39(6):612-618.
doi: 10.2341/13-108-L. [Full text links] [PubMed] Google
Scholar (11) Scopus (3)
23. Mehl C, Scheibner S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Wear of composite
resin veneering materials and enamel in a chewing
Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(4): 248-253
http://www.stomaeduj.com