IADR Abstract Archives
Polish Retention of Bulk Fill Composites
Objectives: The objective of this work was to characterize the surface gloss after tooth-brushing of dental bulk fill dental restorative materials, containing different filler technologies.
Methods: Gloss measurements were made on polished and tooth-brushed surfaces of composite specimens cured according to manufacturers' instructions. Materials which were tested included the new bulk-fill nanocomposite, FiltekTM Bulk Fill (FBF, 3M ESPE), nanohybrids Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill (TECBF, Ivoclar-Vivadent), Sonic Fill (SF, Kerr), hybrids Quixx (QX, Dentsply), x-tra Fil (EXF, Voco), Alert (AL, Pentron), Sure Fil High Density Posterior (SUR, Dentsply) as well as a two component hybrid composite Hyper Fill (HF, Parkell).
Highly polished specimens (n=5) of each material were tooth-brushed for 6000 strokes using 454g of force. The resulting gloss retention (GR) at 60° was measured by a Novo-Curve gloss instrument.
Results:
Material | GR (gloss units) | Composite/Filler Type |
FBF | 58,2 ± 3,2 a | Nanocomposite |
HF | 29,0 ± 5,2 b | Hybrid |
SUR | 19,6 ± 3,5 c | Hybrid |
QX | 19,0 ± 0,7 cd | Hybrid |
TECBF | 17,4 ± 1,4 cde | Nanohybrid |
XF | 15,8 ± 0,6 de | Multi-Hybrid |
AL | 14,1 ± 1,5 ef | Hybrid |
SF | 10,8 ± 0,7 f | Nanohybrid |
ANOVA analysis showed that at p<0.05, FBF had statistically higher gloss retention after tooth-brushing than any of the other materials tested. The superscript letter indicates which samples are statistically not different.
Conclusion: Only the nanocomposite FBF shows high polish retention after tooth-brushing. This may be attributed to its nanofiller technology already used in Filtek Supreme Ultra/XTE (3M ESPE).