Methods: Three restorative materials were selected and stratified into cylindrical molds: Filtek Silorane (3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent) and GrandioSO (VOCO GmbH). As control, enamel specimens were obtained from crown's buccal aspect of caries-free, freshly extracted molars. All samples were placed inside the chamber of a Dual Axis Chewing Simulator with physiological saline and tested against mesio-palatal enamel cusps, cut out of similar molars. Cusps were ground and polished to a 3-mm spherical radius shape with 1000-grit silicon carbide paper. On each sample 120000 cycles were performed. All samples were subjected to a quantitative surface analysis using a profilometer and the vertical substance loss (µm) was recorded. Mean values were statistically compared (One-Way-ANOVA).
Results: The vertical substance loss for human enamel specimens was 63.48 µm. Filtek Silorane showed the overall highest value (206.81µm). The closest to human enamel (control) values were achieved with GrandioSO restorative.
Conclusions: After 120000 cycles, equivalent to about 6 months of chewing, commonly used restorative materials showed a dissimilar wear pattern compared to that of human enamel. Among the several properties of restorative materials, a wear resistance as close as possible to that of human enamel should be preferred by the clinician.