JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY THE

Vol. 99 No. 6      June - 2008

ISSN: 0022-3913      UBIC: 171

RESUMEN

Statement of problem: The use of composite resins for the restoration of posterior teeth is popular because of the improved performance and appearance of these materials. Wear resistance continues to be of particular importance when restoring large occlusal areas in posterior teeth. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative wear characteristics of 2 recently introduced nanofiller-based composite resins (Filtek Supreme, Premise) and compare them to the more traditional microhybrid (Point 4) and microfill (Heliomolar RO) materials that have been used for many years. Material and methods: Six specimens (2 mm thick and 15 mm in diameter) of each material were subjected to 3-body wear tests using the Oregon Health Sciences University Oral Wear Simulator to produce abrasive wear and attrition for all specimens using human enamel as the opposing cusp. Profilometric tracings of the worn surfaces were used to determine the relative abrasive wear, attrition wear, and roughness (Ra) of the composite resin substrate. The mean diameter of the antagonist enamel wear facets was determined under a measuring microscope. Qualitative SEM analysis was also used to assess the surface appearance of the resulting enamel and composite resin wear facets. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple range post hoc test (α=.O5). Results: The results indicated that the composite resin type did not significantly affect the amount of measured attrition (P=.15) but did significantly affect abrasive wear (P=.02). The conventional microfill composite resin (Heliomolar RO) exhibited significantly less abrasive wear than the nanohybrid material (Premise). There was no significant difference in the average size of the opposing enamel wear facet generated by the different composite resin materials. Heliomolar RO resulted in a significantly rougher surface within the wear track than either nanohybrid composite resin (Premise) or microhybrid composite resin (Point 4) bur was not significantly different than nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Supreme). Conclusions: The incorporation of nanofillers in 2 of the composite resin materials tested did not significantly improve their wear resistance or the amount of opposing cusp wear when compared to the traditional materials tested. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:435-443)

| Volver |