Premium
Comparison of Wear‐Resistance of Class V Restorative Materials
Author(s) -
FRAZIER KEVIN B.,
RUEGGEBERG FREDERICK A.,
METTENBURG DONALD J.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00509.x
Subject(s) - materials science , toothbrush , glass ionomer cement , composite material , wear resistance , brush
Compomers and resin‐modified glass ionomers have been developed to improve the physical properties of traditional glass ionomer cements. This project compared the toothbrush wear‐resistance of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) and three resin‐modified glass ionomer restorative materials (Fuji II LC, Photac‐Fil, Vitremer) to that of two resin‐based composites (Herculite XRV, Silux Plus). Specimens (n = 7) were prepared according to manufacturers' instructions and stored in a humidor for 48 hours prior to testing. The specimens were subjected to 120,000 strokes at 1.5 Hz, using a brush‐head force of 200 g on a Manly V‐8 cross‐brushing machine. The slurry contained a 50:50 (w/w) mixture of toothpaste and deionized water. Abrasion‐resistance was calculated by measuring specimen mass‐loss prior to and subsequent to brushing. The data were analyzed using a one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey‐Kramer post‐hoc test. Significant differences ( p ±.0001) in mass‐loss were found, and loss ranged from 0.013 ± 0.003 g (Hytac) to 0.061 ± 0.009 g (Compoglass). No correlation ( p = .959) between wear‐resistance and experimentally determined filler content existed. This study showed that all but one hybrid resin‐ionomer type material exhibited a resistance to toothbrush wear that was as good as or better than that of the two traditional resin‐based composite materials.