IADR Abstract Archives
In-vitro Wear Resistance of Contemporary Flowable Resin Composites
Objectives: To evaluate the two-body wear of newly marketed flowable resin composites
Methods: Five flowable composites were tested: 1. Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M-ESPE); 2. NovaPro Flow (Nanova); 3. SureFil SDR Flow (Dentsply); 4. Clearfil Majesty Flow (Kuraray); 5. G-aenial Universal Flo (GC). Specimens were prepared by injecting each flowable composite into aluminum molds (5×20×1.5mm). Specimens were covered by mylar strips and light-cured by Bluephase 16i (Ivoclar) for 40sec, then stored in water for 24Hrs before testing. Specimens in molds were mounted onto a sliding wear testing machine. Antagonists was made from enamel non-functional cusps of extracted human third molars. Cusps were mounted in antagonist holders in the wear testing machine using autopolymerizing resin. The uniform sliding abrasion had a length of 21mm. A constant vertical load (2N) was applied to all specimens up to 200k sliding cycles. Each antagonist was used once. Measurement of dry weight, wear depth and surface roughness of the specimens and the antagonists were conducted at 5 intervals: baseline, 50k, 100k, 150k, and 200k cycles. The depth of each wear groove was measured by a digital micrometer gauge (Mitutoyo ID-F150). A profilometer (Mitutoyo SJ-201) was used to measure the surface roughness in all specimens
Results: The results are shown in table 1
Conclusions: There were no significant differences among the 5 flowable composites in terms of weight loss after testing. However, Filtek group showed significantly lower wear depth, and Filtek and Clearfil majesty group showed significantly lower surface roughness than other groups. No significant differences were found among the antagonist cusps in terms of weight loss
Methods: Five flowable composites were tested: 1. Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M-ESPE); 2. NovaPro Flow (Nanova); 3. SureFil SDR Flow (Dentsply); 4. Clearfil Majesty Flow (Kuraray); 5. G-aenial Universal Flo (GC). Specimens were prepared by injecting each flowable composite into aluminum molds (5×20×1.5mm). Specimens were covered by mylar strips and light-cured by Bluephase 16i (Ivoclar) for 40sec, then stored in water for 24Hrs before testing. Specimens in molds were mounted onto a sliding wear testing machine. Antagonists was made from enamel non-functional cusps of extracted human third molars. Cusps were mounted in antagonist holders in the wear testing machine using autopolymerizing resin. The uniform sliding abrasion had a length of 21mm. A constant vertical load (2N) was applied to all specimens up to 200k sliding cycles. Each antagonist was used once. Measurement of dry weight, wear depth and surface roughness of the specimens and the antagonists were conducted at 5 intervals: baseline, 50k, 100k, 150k, and 200k cycles. The depth of each wear groove was measured by a digital micrometer gauge (Mitutoyo ID-F150). A profilometer (Mitutoyo SJ-201) was used to measure the surface roughness in all specimens
Results: The results are shown in table 1
Conclusions: There were no significant differences among the 5 flowable composites in terms of weight loss after testing. However, Filtek group showed significantly lower wear depth, and Filtek and Clearfil majesty group showed significantly lower surface roughness than other groups. No significant differences were found among the antagonist cusps in terms of weight loss
2632747_File000001.jpg