Premium
Wear and fatigue behavior of nano‐structured dental resin composites
Author(s) -
Turssi Cecilia P.,
Ferracane Jack L.,
Ferracane Lucas L.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.30475
Subject(s) - materials science , composite material , abrasion (mechanical) , resin composite , composite number , acrylic resin , flexural strength , coating
Theoretically, nano‐structured dental resin composites are purported to have increased wear and fatigue resistance compared with microfill composites and may favor the achievement of restoratives with better long‐term performance. This study sought to assess the behavior of nano‐structured composites resulting from either abrasion and fatigue loading. Ten specimens (12 × 5 × 2.5 mm) were prepared from each of five composites: Ceram‐X mono, Filtek Supreme, Grandio, Premise, and Heliomolar (serving as the microfill control). A surface profile was recorded using a three‐dimensional profiling system, and the specimens were subjected to 10 5 cycles of three‐body abrasion in the new OHSU oral wear simulator. A second profile was generated and the before and after profiles were fit and analyzed. The volume loss and maximum depth of the wear facet on each specimen were calculated. Another 30 specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) were tested for flexural fatigue limit (FFL) in four‐point bending via the staircase method. The test was carried out until 10 4 cycles were completed or until fracturing the specimen. One‐way ANOVA and Tukey's test demonstrated greater volumetric loss for Grandio and Ceram‐X than that observed for the remaining composites. Kruskal‐Wallis and the least significant difference test ascertained that Heliomolar, Grandio, and Supreme showed significantly higher FFL than Ceram‐X and Premise. In terms of wear and fatigue resistance, nano‐structured composites may perform either similarly or comparatively worse than a microfilled composite. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2006