Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of different composite materials
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the abrasive wear resistance and surface characteristics of three commercially available resin-based dental composites: Glint 21, Restofill, and Te Econom plus.
Materials and Methods: Disc-shaped specimens (n=2 per group) were prepared and stored in distilled water for 24 hours. Surface microhardness was measured using a Vickers microhardness tester (Shimadzu HMV-G31DT) with a load of 2.942 N for 15 seconds. Surface roughness parameters (R a ,R q ,R z ) were analyzed using a contact-mode profilometer (Mitutoyo SurfTest) according to ISO 1997 standards. Measurements were recorded at baseline (Pre) and after a standardized abrasive wear protocol (Post).
Results: Restofill demonstrated the highest baseline hardness (40.95 VHN), followed by Te Econom plus (27.3 VHN) and Glint 21 (20.85 VHN). Post-abrasion, all materials showed a minor increase in surface hardness, likely due to matrix compression. Profilometric analysis revealed significant surface degradation in Glint 21, with R a increasing from ~0.17 μm to 1.781 μm. Te Econom plus also showed increased roughness (up to 0.901 μm). In contrast, Restofill maintained superior surface stability, with R a values remaining consistently low (0.383–0.387 μm) post-abrasion. +4
Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the wear resistance of the tested composites. Restofill exhibited superior mechanical properties and surface stability, making it highly suitable for restorations in high-stress functional areas. The study highlights the correlation between high initial microhardness and resistance to abrasive surface degradation
References
2. Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should My Composite Restorations Last Forever? Why Are They Failing? Curr Oral Health Rep. 2017;4(3):183-189.
3. Zhou X, Huang X, Li M, Peng X, Wang S, Zhou X, et al. Development of a novel dental restorative composite with improved mechanical properties and reduced polymerization shrinkage. Dent Mater. 2019;35(2):218-227.
4. Lohbauer U. Dental Ceramics: Mechanical Properties and Testing. Materials (Basel). 2010;3(3):1051-1079.
5. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohla M, Rousson V. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):306-319.
6. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vogel K. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate filler composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30(4):412-417.
7. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1996;12(2):93-101.
8. Ayres APA, Sampaio CS, Pacheco RR, Giannini M. Characterization of the surface of a nanohybrid and a nanofilled composite resin: Effect of finishing and polishing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(5):356-363.
9. Shimadzu Corporation. HMV-G Series Micro Vickers Hardness Tester Instruction Manual. Tokyo, Japan; 2018.
10. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier/Saunders; 2013.
11. Say EC, Koray F, Soyman M, Gulmez S. In vitro surface roughness of different dental composites. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(3):306-312.
12. Mitutoyo Corporation. Surftest SJ-210/310 Series User’s Manual. Kawasaki, Japan; 2017.
13. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4287:1997 - Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) -- Surface texture: Profile method -- Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. Geneva, CH; 1997.
