Conference Paper

In Vitro Wear of Eight Bulk Placed and Cured Composites

Authors:
K. SAWLANI
K. SAWLANI
K. SAWLANI
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Preston Beck at University of Alabama at Birmingham
Preston Beck
L.C. RAMP
L.C. RAMP
L.C. RAMP
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
D. CAKIR-USTUN
D. CAKIR-USTUN
D. CAKIR-USTUN
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Show all 5 authorsHide
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Wear resistance is a clinical concern for composites (flowable and packable) that are being developed for bulk placement and curing in posterior restorations. Objective: To determine and compare in vitro three-body wear of 8 commercially available bulk placed composites. Methods: Eight flat disc specimens (n=8) of each composite material (d=8mm/h=2mm) were prepared using a cylindrical elastomeric mold following manufacturers' instructions, and were light-cured in a single increment (Elipar S10/3M ESPE/1000 mW/cm2). The specimens were mounted in brass holders (d=15mm) using self-cured acrylic resin, wet ground (320-, 800- and 1200- grit SiC paper) and finished (0.05 alumina slurry/polishing cloth). After polishing they were rinsed, cleaned (ultrasonic bath in distilled water for 5 minutes) and stored (24h/distilled water/37C). Wear test was conducted on an Alabama Wear Testing Device for 100,000 cycles (load=75N/1.2 Hz). 50 PMMA beads were used as third body media. Volumetric loss for each material was determined using a 3-D non-contact surface profilometer (Proscan2000/Scantron/UK). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey/Kramer test (p=0.05). Results: (MeanSD). Same letters are not statistically different. Materials Type Volume/(mm3) Venus Bulk Fill-Flowable/Heraeus Kulzer Flowable/nano-hybrid 0.0240.004A,F Filtek Bulk Fill/3M ESPE 0.0120.001B,C Tetric Evo Ceram BulkFill/Ivoclar Nano-hybrid 0.0110.002C SureFil High Density Posterior Restorative (HDR)/Dentsply Packable 0.0070.001D SureFil SDR Flow/Dentsply Flowable 0.040.01E Sonic Fill/Kerr Packable/nano-hybrid/sonically activated delivery 0.020.004F Z100/3M ESPE/(Control) Packable/microhybrid 0.0040.001G Z100 produced the least amount of wear whereas SureFil SDR Flow produced the highest compared to rest of the materials (p<.0001). Conclusions: Since wear differs significantly between materials, it should be a factor in the selection of bulk filled composite resins. Materials that do not have high wear resistance should be covered with a wear resistant composite.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.