Evaluation of the wear resistance of new nanocomposite resin restorative materials.
BACKGROUND
The use of composite resins for the restoration of posterior teeth is popular because of the improved performance and appearance of these materials. Wear resistance continues to be of particular importance when restoring large occlusal areas in posterior teeth.


OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative wear characteristics of 2 recently introduced nanofiller-based composite resins (Filtek Supreme, Premise) and compare them to the more traditional microhybrid (Point 4) and microfill (Heliomolar RO) materials that have been used for many years.


METHODS
Six specimens (2 mm thick and 15 mm in diameter) of each material were subjected to 3-body wear tests using the Oregon Health Sciences University Oral Wear Simulator to produce abrasive wear and attrition for all specimens using human enamel as the opposing cusp. Profilometric tracings of the worn surfaces were used to determine the relative abrasive wear, attrition wear, and roughness (Ra) of the composite resin substrate. The mean diameter of the antagonist enamel wear facets was determined under a measuring microscope. Qualitative SEM analysis was also used to assess the surface appearance of the resulting enamel and composite resin wear facets. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple range post hoc test (alpha=.05).


RESULTS
The results indicated that the composite resin type did not significantly affect the amount of measured attrition (P=.15) but did significantly affect abrasive wear (P=.02). The conventional microfill composite resin (Heliomolar RO) exhibited significantly less abrasive wear than the nanohybrid material (Premise). There was no significant difference in the average size of the opposing enamel wear facet generated by the different composite resin materials. Heliomolar RO resulted in a significantly rougher surface within the wear track than either nanohybrid composite resin (Premise) or microhybrid composite resin (Point 4) but was not significantly different than nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Supreme).


CONCLUSIONS
The incorporation of nanofillers in 2 of the composite resin materials tested did not significantly improve their wear resistance or the amount of opposing cusp wear when compared to the traditional materials tested.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey. zyesilz@hotmail.com
Zeynep Duymus
ZD
Yesil
Satish
S
Alapati
William
W
Johnston
Robert R
RR
Seghi
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000473:pathology; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear / Q000145:classification*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008853:Microscopy; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D053761:Nanocomposites / Q000737:chemistry*; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D019217:Tooth Attrition / Q000473:pathology
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; C474035:Filtek Supreme; C513708:Heliomolar; D011140:Polyurethanes; C451741:point 4 composite resin; C507210:premise composite resin