864 Wear of Six Composite Resin Restorative Materials

Friday, March 23, 2012: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
M. KYSON, D. KOJIC, P. BECK, L. RAMP, D. CAKIR, J. BURGESS, and S. KYSON, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Objective: To measure the wear of 6 restorative materials.

Methods: Eight flat disc specimens (n=8) of each composite material (d=10mm/h=4mm) were prepared using a flexible mold following manufacturers' instructions.  Each composite was placed into the mold in �2mm increments and light-cured (Elipar S10/3M ESPE/1020mW/cm2). After curing the specimens were separated from the mold, stored in distilled water (24h/37�C), mounted in brass holders (d=15mm/self-cured acrylic resin), polished (320-, 600- and 1000- grit SiC paper) and �finished (0.05� alumina slurry + polishing cloth). The wear test was conducted on a modified UAB wear machine for 400,000 cycles using stainless steel sphere tips (d = 4.70mm, type 440C) with load of 75N. 50�.� PMMA beads were used as the third body media (15g beads+9g water). Restorative materials were scanned before and after wear using a non-contact 3D profilometer (PROSCAN2000/Scantron/UK) to determine the loss of each restorative material (wear-depth and volume) and volume loss of enamel (ProForm software). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey/Kramer post-hoc test (p=0.05).

Results: (Mean�SD)

 Results are displayed in the table below (Mean� SD)

Material

Volume (mm3)

Depth (�m)

Gradia� Direct (GC)

0.058�0.022

125.3�12

Grandio� (Voco)

0.038�0.020

88.5�20

Herculite� Ultra (Kerr)

0.050�0.017

81.9�11

Tetric Evo Ceram� (Ivoclar)

0.053�0.014

110�14

Paradigm� (3M ESPE)

0.034�0.023

75.6�16

TPH�3 (Caulk Dentsply)

0.044�0.02

103.3�13

 

Volume: No differences were found among the materials for wear volume (p=0.17)������������ �

Depth: Gradia Direct had the greatest wear depth compared to other materials except Tetric Evo Ceram and TPH3 (p<0.0001). Paradigm wore less compared to Tetric Evo Ceram and TPH3 (p<0.05)

Conclusions: Wear of composite materials is an important selection criteria for load-bearing restorations especially when placing composite resin restorations in molars. Funded in part by a grant from 3M ESPE.

This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source: Funded in part by a grant from 3M ESPE

Keywords: Biomaterials, Composites, Dental materials and Wear