Effect of Sliding Movement Mechanism on Contact Wear Behavior of Composite Materials in Simulation of Oral Environment

  • Efe Çetin YilmazEmail author


The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the sliding motion mechanism on contact-wear resistance of composite materials under in vitro chewing test process. In the conditions recommended by the manufacturer, composite test specimens (P60, Cleafil AP-X, Grandio, Heliomolar, Supreme, and Z250) were produced from each composite material. All test specimens were kept in pure water for at least 1-week period and Vickers hardness was determined before contact wear tests. Then contact wear tests were performed using a chewing simulation (50 N, 240.000 chewing cycles 1.2 Hz and 37 °C temperature). Each contact wear test, steatite ball with a diameter of 6 mm was used as antagonist material. Half of the specimens of each test group were loaded with a sliding movement of 0.7 mm, the other half remaining without sliding movement. The mean volume loss of all specimens after the contact wear tests was determined with use 3D profilometer. In addition to a random specimen was selected from each test group and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images were taken for analysis of wear tracks. All composite materials showed significantly more volume loss when it occurred sliding movement than without sliding movement contact wear tests. It can be suggested in this work that the larger monomer and harder surface glass structure contained in the composite material cause more volume loss when it occurred during sliding contact wear mechanism.


Wear Sliding movement Composite Simulation of mouth motion Volume loss 



The author would like to thank Prof. Recep Sadeler (Atatürk University) for his precious contribution.


  1. 1.
    Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Kanehira M, Finger WJ (2012) Two- and three-body wear of composite resins. Dent Mater 28(12):1261–1270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Dijken JW (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent 28(5):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yilmaz EC, Sadeler R (2018) Investigation of two- and three-body wear resistance on flowable bulk-fill and resin-based composites. Mech Compos Mater 54(3):395–402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH (1996) Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement report of a workshop. J Dentis 24(1–2):141–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G (1989) Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68(12):1752–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambrechts P, Goovaerts K, Bharadwaj D, De Munck J, Bergmans L, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B (2006) Degradation of tooth structure and restorative materials: a review. Wear 261(9):980–986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW (1994) Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dent Mater 10(4):269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heintze SD (2006) How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 22(8):712–734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hahnel S, Behr M, Handel G, Rosentritt M (2009) Two-body wear of artificial acrylic and composite resin teeth in relation to antagonist material. J Prosthet Dent 101(4):269–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghazal M, Yang B, Ludwig K, Kern M (2008) Two-body wear of resin and ceramic denture teeth in comparison to human enamel. Dent Mater 24(4):502–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghazal M, Steiner M, Kern M (2008) Wear resistance of artificial denture teeth. Int J Prosthodont 21(2):166–168Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, van Putten M (1999) Two-body wear resistance and degree of conversion of laboratory-processed composite materials. Int J Prosthodont 12(5):432–438Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Souza JCM, Bentes AC, Reis K, Gavinha S, Buciumeanu M, Henriques B, Silva FS, Comes JR (2016) Abrasive and sliding wear of resin composites for dental restorations. Tribol Int 102:154–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yilmaz EC, Sadeler R (2018) Investigation of three-body wear of dental materials under different chewing cycles. Sci Eng Comp Mater 25(4):781–787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC (2003) Influence of filler loading on the two-body wear of a dental composite. J Oral Rehabil 30(7):729–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazaridou D, Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2015) Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear. Clin Oral Investig 19(6):1485–1492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghazal M, Kern M (2009) The influence of antagonistic surface roughness on the wear of human enamel and nanofilled composite resin artificial teeth. J Prosthet Dent 101(5):342–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL (1993) Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 69(4):425–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shortall AC, Hu XQ, Marquis PM (2002) Potential countersample materials for in vitro simulation wear testing. Dent Mater 18(3):246–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hahnel S, Schultz S, Trempler C, Ach B, Handel G, Rosentritt M (2011) Two-body wear of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4(3):237–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wimmer T, Huffmann AMS, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B (2016) Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mater 32(6):E127–E136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehl C, Scheibner S, Ludwig K, Kern M (2007) Wear of composite resin veneering materials and enamel in a chewing simulator. Dent Mater 23(11):1382–1389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yap AUJ, Teoh SH, Tan KB (2000) Influence of water exposure on three-body wear of composite restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res 53(5):547–553.;2-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yilmaz E, Sadeler R (2016) Effect of thermal cycling and microhardness on roughness of composite restorative materials. J Restor Dent 4(3):93–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawson NC, Cakir D, Beck P, Litaker MS, Burgess JO (2012) Characterization of third-body media particles and their effect on in vitro composite wear. Dent Mater 28(8):E118–E126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jorgensen KD (1980) Restorative resins—abrasion vs mechanical-properties. Scand J Dent Res 88(6):557–568Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Adey JD (2002) Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater 18(1):1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH (2004) Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater 20(3):277–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering FacultyKilis 7 Aralık UniversityKilisTurkey

Personalised recommendations