Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to determine the wear resistance of five different packable composites versus two different composite controls using a laboratory toothbrushing simulation test.


METHODS
Twelve samples measuring 5 mm in diameter and 3 mm thick were prepared from the following resin composites: Packable resin composites SureFil (Dentsply Ind. Com. Ltda, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Alert (Jeneric Pentron Incorporated, Wallingford, CT, USA), Filtek P60 (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA), Prodigy Condensable (sds Kerr, Orange CA, USA), Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Wehrheim, Germany), and control resin composites Z100 Restorative (3M ESPE) and Silux Plus (3M ESPE). Finishing and polishing were conducted with Sof-Lex disks (3M ESPE), and baseline weight (grams) and surface roughness (measured with Hommel Tester T 1000, Hommelwerke, GmbH, Alte Tuttinger Strebe 20. D-7730 VS-Schwenningen, Germany) were recorded. Specimens were aged for 2 weeks until they reached a weight that remained constant for 5 consecutive days, and then were subjected to 100,000 cycles of brushing (representative of 4.2 yr) using a toothbrushing testing machine. Toothbrush heads with soft bristle tips (Colgate Classic, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil) with dentifrice suspension (Colgate MFP, Colgate-Palmolive Co.) in deionized water were used under a 200 g load. Changes in weight and surface roughness were determined after toothbrushing cycles.


RESULTS
Significant differences of weight loss and surface roughness were found (paired t-test, p < .05). Weight loss percentage (mean [SD]) ranged from 0.38 to 1.69% (analysis of variance and Tukey's least significant difference, p < .05); the weight loss of the materials ranked from least to most as follows: SureFil (0.38 [0.56]), Alert (0.52 [0.18]), Z100 (1.16 [0.27]), Filtek P60 (1.31 [0.17]), Solitaire (1.51 [0.45]), Prodigy Condensable (1.55 [0.471), and Silux Plus (1.69 [0.66]). Regarding surface roughness, Prodigy Condensable (0.19 [0.08]), Solitaire (0.28 [0.06]), and Z100 (0.30 [0.07]) became less rough after toothbrushing, whereas all the others were rendered rougher: Alert (0.49 [0.29]), Filtek P60 (0.28 [0.08]), Silux Plus (0.39 [0.091), and SureFil (0.81 [0.32]).


CONCLUSIONS
SureFil and Alert were statistically more resistant to wear (less weight loss) than were the other materials. SureFil became significantly rougher than did all the others.


CONCLUSIONS
Overal, packable resin composites are unlikely to show superior wear resistance with regard to weight loss and surface roughness compared with current resin composites also indicated for posterior restorations.
Wang
Linda
L
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry of University North of Paraná, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
Garcia
Fernanda Cristina Pimentel
FC
Amarante de Araújo
Paulo
P
Franco
Eduardo Batista
EB
Mondelli
Rafael Francisco Lia
RF
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003188:Composite Resins; D003775:Dental Polishing; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D008422:Materials Testing; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D013499:Surface Properties; D014099:Toothbrushing; D015040:Zirconium
C406265:Alert composite resin; D003188:Composite Resins; C438835:Filtek P60 Composite Resin; C477351:Prodigy Condensable; C113049:Solitaire composite resin; C403464:SureFil packable composite; C083568:Z100 composite resin; C074741:Silux Plus; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D015040:Zirconium