Evaluation of Wear Properties of Four Bulk-Fill Composites: Attrition, Erosion, and Abrasion
Purpose. Wear and increased surface roughness are among the reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations. Considering the widespread use of bulk-fill composites in the posterior region, information about their wear resistance is imperative. The aim of this study was to compare the wear an...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Hindawi Limited
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/05ddfbec7b9940739a35f8851c4711dd |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Purpose. Wear and increased surface roughness are among the reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations. Considering the widespread use of bulk-fill composites in the posterior region, information about their wear resistance is imperative. The aim of this study was to compare the wear and surface roughness of four bulk-fill composite resins with a conventional composite. Methods. Thirty composite discs (4 mm×10 mm) were fabricated from EverX Posterior (GC), X-tra fil (Voco), Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior (3M, USA), SonicFill 2 (Kerr), and Z250 (3M) composites. The baseline weight and surface roughness of specimens were measured. For the assessment of the attrition wear, the specimens were placed in a chewing simulator (Mechatronik). pH cycling was performed to erode the composite discs. They were then placed in a tooth brushing simulator machine (Dorsa) for abrasion wear. Finally, the weight and surface roughness of the specimens were measured. Data were compared using one-way ANOVA (alpha≤0.05). Results. One-way ANOVA showed that the mean weight changes were significant after attrition, abrasion, and erosion (P=0.019), but changes in surface roughness were not significant (P≥0.05). The results of Tukey’s test showed no significant difference between the bulk-fill composites and Z250 regarding weight loss (P≥0.05), but the weight loss of X-tra fil was significantly greater than that of EverX (P=0.007) and Filtek Bulk-Fill (P=0.005). Conclusions. Considering the limitations of this study, it appears that the wear and surface roughness of bulk-fill composites are within the acceptable range and are not different from those of a conventional composite. |
|---|