DOI: https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2019.6(2).art.1


Objectives To test wear of 10 universal composites and the antagonist. Null hypothesis: there are no differences in the composite and antagonist wear.
Materials and Methods Flat samples, light cured as of manufacturer’s instructions and polished were made from Admira Fusion (AF), Filtek Supreme Ultra (FS), G-aenial Sculpt (GS), Harmonize (HR), Herculite Ultra (HU), Tetric Evoceram (TE), TPH Spectra (SP) and three Ultradent experimental materials (UPI Exp 1-3) (n=8), and stored in water for 3 weeks. They were subjected to wear in a chewing simulator (1.2 x 105 cycles, 49 N, 0.7 mm lateral movement, 1 Hz, steatite antagonists (Ø 6 mm), simultaneously thermocycled (5/55°C) every 90 s). The volumetric wear of the composite was measured with a 3D laser scanner) after 5,000, 10,000 then every 10,000, up to 120,000 cycles. The wear of antagonists was measured after 120,000 cycles.
Results From 5,000 – 120,000 load cycles wear was linear. The total volumetric wear of composites was: GS 0.428±0.083 mm3, UPI Exp 3 0.51±0.042 mm3, HU 0.576±0.072 mm3, SP 0.609±0.088 mm3, FS 0.635±0.077 mm3, HR 0.658±0.116 mm3, TE 0.714 ± 0.097 mm3, Ultradent UPI Exp2 0.725±0.132 mm3, UPI Exp 1 0.894±0.278 mm3 and AF 1.578±0.37 mm3. The wear of AF was significantly the largrest (p < 0.0001). GS showed the lowest wear, but shared this position with UPI Exp 3, HU, SP, FS and HR. The total wear of UPI Exp3 was the lowest.
Conclusion The null hypothesis was rejected.
Clinical Relevance Except for AF, wear should be within acceptable limits.
Keywords Dental materials; In vitro; Wear; Composite; Thermocycling.


Figures are shown in pdf document 

| (read pdf) |