The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate and compare two-body wear of hybrid, microhybrid, and nanohybrid direct and indirect composite resins.
Materials and methods
A pin-on-disc wear device was used to study the effects of the water on two-body wear rate of two microhybrid composites (Solidex® and Dialog®), a nanohybrid composite (Grandio®SO), and three direct composite resins: a hybrid composite (Herculite Classic™), a submicron hybrid composite (Charisma®), and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric® N-Ceram). For testing, 12 specimens of each material with 6.5 mm diameter and 4 mm height were made and half of the specimens were stored in the distilled water for 1 week at 37℃. In order to evaluate the wear rate of samples, a normal load of 15 N was applied to specimen’s surface. The 6.5 mm diameter composite sample held to pin holder and AISI 316 L stainless steel was employed as the disc. The following experimental parameters were kept constant for all tests: sliding velocity = 0.6 m/s, temperature 25 ± 3℃, 1.2 Hz, and 10,000 cycles. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s test were performed to compare the wear rate of resin composites.
Results
Ranking of wear rate (most to least) without water exposure was as follows: Dialog>Solidex>Charisma>GrandioSO>Tetric Ceram=Herculite. No significant difference in wear was observed between GrandioSO, Tetric N-Ceram, and Herculite Classic, with and without water exposure (p > .05, respectively).
Conclusions
The nanohybrid resins—regardless of indirect or direct use—showed significantly less abrasive wear than the microhybrid resins.
KurachiCTuboyAMMagalhaesDV. Hardness evaluation of a dental composite polymerized with experimental LED-based devices. Dent Mater2001; 17: 309–315.
2.
PerisARMitsuiFHOAmaralCM. The effect of composite type on microhardness when using quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) or LED lights. Oper Dent2005; 30: 649–654.
LimB-SFerracaneJLCondonJR. Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater2002; 18: 1–11.
5.
MandikosMNMcGivneyGPDavisE. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent2001; 85: 386–395.
6.
ManhartJKunzelmannKHChenHY. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater2000; 16: 33–40.
7.
BayneSCHeymannHOSwiftEJJr. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc1994; 125: 687–701.
8.
TsaiPCMeyersIAWalshLJ. Depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resin cured with blue LED curing lights. Dent Mater2004; 20: 364–369.
9.
SouzaROAÖzcanMMichidaSMA. Conversion degree of indirect composites and effect of thermocycling on their physical properties. J Prosthodont2010; 19: 218–225.
10.
BorbaMDella BonaACecchettiD. Flexural strength and hardness of direct and indirect composites. Braz Oral Res2009; 23: 5–10.
11.
VaishnaviCKavithaSNarayananLL. Comparison of the fracture toughness and wear resistance of indirect composites cured by conventional post curing methods and electron beam irradiation. J Conserv Dent2010; 13: 145–147.
12.
SantanaILLodoviciEMatosJR. Effect of experimental heat treatment on mechanical properties of resin composites. Braz Dent J2009; 20: 205–210.
13.
CesarPFMirandaWGJrBragaRR. Influence of shade and storage time on the flexurale strength, flexurale modulus, and hardness of composites used for indirect restorations. J Prosthet Dent2001; 86: 289–296.
14.
SuwannaroopPChaijareenontPKoottathapeN. In vitro wear resistance, hardness and elastic modulus of artificial denture teeth. Dent Mater J2011; 30: 461–468.
15.
BragaSRMTachibanaTYGarone-NettoN. Abrasion resistance of different composites. J Health Sci Inst2010; 29: 85–88.
16.
HahnelSBehrMHandelG. Two-body wear of artificial acrylic and composite resin teeth in relation to antagonist material. J Prosthet Dent2009; 101: 269–278.
17.
YapAUJTeohSHTanKB. Influence of water exposure on three-body wear of composite restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater)2000; 53: 547–553.
18.
GhazalMAlbashairehZSKernM. Wear resistance of nanofilled composite resin and feldspathic ceramic artificial teeth. J Prosthet Dent2008; 100: 441–448.
19.
HirataMKoizumiHTanoueN. Influence of laboratory light sources on the wear characteristics of indirect composites. Dent Mater J2011; 30: 127–135.
20.
HarshaAPTewariUS. Two-body and three-body abrasive wear behaviour of polyaryletherketone composites. Polym Test2003; 22: 403–418.
21.
HeintzeSDZellwegerGCavalleriA. Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear simulation methods. Dent Mater2006; 22: 166–175.
22.
LambrechtsPBraemMVuylsteke-WautersM. Quantative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res1989; 68: 1752–1754.
23.
KunzelmannKH. Verschleissanalyse und quatifizierung von Füllungsmaterialien in vivo und in vitro. I, Aachen: Shaker, 1998.
24.
YapAUJChewCLOngLFKL. Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil2002; 29: 87–97.
25.
LutzFPhillipsRWRouletJF. In vivo and in vitro wear of potential posterior composites. J Dent Res1984; 63: 914–920.
26.
WillemsGLambrechtsPBreamM. Three-year follow-up five posterior composites: In vivo wear. J Dent1993; 21: 74–78.
27.
DeLongRPintadoMRDouglasWH. Wear of dental composite in an artificial oral environment: A clinical correlation. J Biomed Mater Res Part B2012; 100B: 2297–2306.
28.
ASTM. Standard test method for wear testing with a pin-on-disk apparatus. ASTM G99 95a, 2000.
29.
KeenanMJHegstedMJonesKL. Comparison of bone density measurement techniques: DXA and Archimedes’ principle. J Bone Miner Res1997; 12: 1903–1907.
30.
SeongW-JKimU-KSwiftJQ. Correlations between physical properties of jaw bone and dental implant initial stability. J Prosthet Dent2009; 101: 306–318.
31.
De GeeAJPallavPDavidsonCL. Effect of abrasion medium on wear of stress-bearing composites and amalgam in vitro. J Dent Res1986; 65: 654–658.
32.
SakaguchiRLDouglasWHDeLongR. The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: A clinical correlation. Dent Mater1986; 2: 235–240.
33.
YapAUJ. Occlusal contact area (OCA) wear of two new composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil2002; 29: 194–200.
34.
McLundieACPattersonCJW. Comparison of the abrasive wear in vitro of a number of composite resin. Br Dent J1982; 153: 404–406.
35.
TyasMJWassenaarP. Clinical evaluation of four composite resins in posterior teeth: Five-year results. Aust Dent J1991; 36: 369–373.
36.
ByrantRWMarzbaniNHodgeKV. Occlusal margin defects around different types of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent1992; 17: 215–221.
37.
MazerRBLeinfelderKF. Evaluating a microfill posterior composite resin: A five-year study. J Am Dent Assoc1992; 123: 32–37.
38.
TurssiCPFerracaneJLFerracaneLL. Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater2006; 78B: 196–203.
39.
SöderholmKJM. Leaking of fillers in dental composites. J Dent Res1983; 62: 126–130.
40.
TanoueNMatsumuraHAtsutaM. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent2000; 84: 93–97.
41.
SavabiONejatidaneshFShabanianM. Two-body wear resistance of some indirect composite resins. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent2011; 19: 81–84.
42.
PeutzfeldtA. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci1997; 105: 97–116.
43.
AsmussenE. Factors affecting the quantity of remaining double bonds in restorative resin polymers. Scand J Dent Res1982; 90: 490–496.
44.
JorgensonKDHorstedPJanumO. Abrasion of class I restorative resins. Scand J Dent Res1979; 87: 140–145.
45.
Han J, Zhang H, Choe HS, et al. Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin. Dent Mater J. Epub ahead of print 9 July 2014. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2013-339.
46.
JorgensonKDAsmussenE. Occlusal abrasion of a composite restorative resin with ultra-fine filler—an initial study. Quintessence Int1978; 9: 73–78.
47.
XingXSLiRKY. Wear behavior of epoxy matrix composites filled with uniform sized sub-micron spherical silica particles. Wear2004; 256: 21–26.
48.
DrummondJL. Degradation, fatigue and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res2008; 87: 710–719.
49.
KoottathapeNTakahashiHIwasakiN. Two- and three-body wear of composite resins. Dent Mater2012; 28: 1261–1270.
50.
FariaACLBenassiUMRodriquesRCS. Analysis of the relationship between the surface hardness and wear resistance of indirect composites used as veneer materials. Braz Dent J2007; 18: 60–64.
51.
TarumiHToriiMTsuchitaniY. Relationship between particle barium glass filler and water sorption of light-cured composite resin. Dent Mater1995; 14: 37–44.
52.
Ferracane JL and Condon JR. Degredation of composites caused by accelerated aging, ‘Abstract’. J Dent Res 1991; 79: 480.Abstr. No: 1716.
53.
St-GeorgesAJSwiftEJTompsonJYJr. Curing light intensity effects on wear resistance of two resin composites. Oper Dent2002; 27: 410–417.
