Advertisement

Mechanics of Composite Materials

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 395–402 | Cite as

Investigation of Two- and Three-Body Wear Resistance on Flowable Bulk-Fill and Resin-Based Composites

  • E. Ç. Yilmaz
  • R. Sadeler
Article
  • 25 Downloads

The purpose of the present study was to investigate two and three-body wear resistance and hardness of eighth kinds of modern bulk-fill and resin-based composite materials — Grandio, Estelite Flow, Filtek bulk-fill, Charisma, Clearfil, Ultimate, Quadrant, and G-aenial. All samples were kept in distilled water for one week, and their Vickers hardness was determined before two- and three-body wear tests. The mean volume loss of all specimens after the wear tests was determined by the 3D profilometry. In addition, a random specimen was selected from each test group and scanning electron microscope images were taken for an analysis of wear tracks. The surface morphology of the Clearfil and Ultimate composite materials was damaged severely, whereas Grandio and Charisma had a very smooth surface after two-body wear tests. The lowest mean volume loss was measured in micro-fill Grandio two-body and three-body wear tests. The Filtek bulk-fill and resinbased composites showed similar two- and three-body wear behavior. For the composite materials considered, correlations between the filler volume loss, Vickers hardness, and two- and three-body wear resistances were found to be insignificant.

Keywords

two- and three-body wear composite resin chewing simulation volume loss 

References

  1. 1.
    F. Engelhardt et al., “Comparison of flowable bulk-fill and flowable resin-based composites: an in vitro analysis,” Clin. Oral Investig., 20, No. 8, 2123-2130 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Ilie and K. Stark, “Curing behaviour of high-viscosity bulk-fill composites,” J. of Dentistry, 42, No. 8, 977-985 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bucuta and N. Ilie, “Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites,” Clin. Oral Investig., 18, N. 8, 1991-2000 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. Lohbauer et al., “The effect of different light-curing units on fatigue behavior and degree of conversion of a resin composite,” Dental Mater., 21, No. 7, 608-615 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Koottathape et al., Quantitative wear and wear damage analysis of composite resins in vitro,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 29, 508-516 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. J. Christensen, “Remaining challenges with Class II resin-based composite restorations,” J. Am. Dental Assoc., 138, No. 11, 1487-1489 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Lazaridou et al., “Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear,” Clin. Oral Investig., 19, No. 6, 1485-1492 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. H. Mair et al., “Wear: Mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop,” J. Dentistry, 24, Nos. 1-2, 141-148 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. K. Kim et al., “A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear,” J. Oral Rehabilit., 28. No. 11, 1048-1055 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Hahnel et al., “Two-body wear of dental restorative materials,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 4, No. 3, 237-244 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. L. Ferracane, “Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks,” Dental Mater., 22, No. 3, 211-222 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Mehl et al., “Wear of composite resin veneering materials and enamel in a chewing simulator,” Dental Mater, 23, No. 11, 1382-1389 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Rosentritt et al., “Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures,” Dental Mater., 22, No. 2, 176-182 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. C. M. Souza et al., “Abrasive and sliding wear of resin composites for dental restorations,” Tribology Int., 102, 154-160 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    X. Hu, P.M. Marquis, and A.C. Shortall, “Influence of filler loading on the two-body wear of a dental composite,” J. Oral Rehabilit., 30, No. 7, 729-737 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. A. Knobloch et al., “Two-body wear resistance and degree of conversion of laboratory-processed composite materials,” Int. J. Prosthodontics, 12. No. 5, 432-438 (1999).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Koottathape et al., “Two- and three-body wear of composite resins,” Dental Mater., 28, No. 12, 1261-1270 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Finlay et al., “The in vitro wear behavior of experimental resin-based composites derived from a commercial formulation,” Dental Mater., 29, No. 4, 365-374 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Lauvahutanon et al., “In vitro evaluation of the wear resistance of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM,” Dental Mater. J., 34, No. 4, 495-502 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. D. Heintze, “How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods,” Dental Mater., 22, No. 8, 712-734 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    X. Hu, A. C. Shortall, and P. M. Marquis, “Wear of three dental composites under different testing conditions,” J. Oral Rehabilit., 29, No. 8, 756-764 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. U. J. Yap, S. H. Teoh, and K. B. Tan, “Influence of water exposure on three-body wear of composite restoratives,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 53, No. 5, 547-553 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Yilmaz and R. Sadeler, “Effect of thermal cycling and microhardness on roughness of composite restorative materials,” J. of Restorative Dentistry, 4, No. 3, 93-96 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. G. Chadwick et al., The effect of storage media upon the surface microhardness and abrasion resistance of 3 composites,” Dental Mater., 6, No. 2, 123-128 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Pieters et al., “Water uptake of a silorane-based composite used in restorative dentistry,” Mech. Compos. Mater., 50, No. 3, 395-402 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. J. Obrien and J. Yee, “Microstructure of posterior restorations of composite resin after clinical wear,” Operative Dentistry, 5, No. 3, 90-94 (1980).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. D. Jorgensen, “Restorative resins – abrasion vs. mechanical-properties,” Scandinav. J. Dental Res., 88, No. 6, 557-568 (1980).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. R. Condon and J. L. Ferracane, “In vitro wear of composite with varied cure, filler level, and filler treatment,” J. Dental Res., 76, No. 7, 1405-1411 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technical Science of Pasinler Vocational SchoolAtaturk University TurkeyErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringAtaturk UniversitErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations