Clinical Wear of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations: One-year results

Methods: Fifty-four patients, whose treatment plans included moderate classI and/or classII restorations on molars, be 20-25 years of age and in good health were selected. 6-month and 12-month after placement of the restorations, the 20 teeth restored with each material were submitted to wear evaluation. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken and casts were made. Wear was measured, by use of gypsum replicas, at baseline, 6-month and after 12-month by 3D scanning and rapidform software to elucidate the wear mechanisms. The data were analyzed via One–way ANOVA and Scheffe tests (p<0.05). Statistically significant differences were found in degree of wear between the five types of material. Results: The highest wear rate were 0,088±0,02 mm3 and 0,132±0,03mm3 in TesceraATL indirect composite and lowest wear rate were 0,058±0,01 mm3 and 0,090±0,02 mm3 in Aelite Esthetic nanofilled composite after 6-month and 12-month respectively. Statistically analysis revealed wear behavior was significantly different from Aelite Esthetic for TesceraATL (p>0.05). No significant differences were detected between, Aelite Esthetic, Estenia (p>0.05) and between Tetric EvoCeram, Filtek SupremeXT and TesceraATL composite resins (p>0.05).

Conclusions: From the results of this study, it would appear that Aelite, Tetric and Supreme are all quite similar composites in terms of their degree of filling. However, significant differences exist in the relative wear. These differences may be the result of their individual matrix polymer components. But one of the indirect composite containing ceramic filler and highly-filled suggests that the filler loading may be important in altering the wear performance of indirect composites.