Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites.

DENTAL-2465; No. of Pages 7

ARTICLE IN PRESS d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx–xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites Magdalena A. Osiewicz a,b , Arie Werner b , Jolanta Pytko-Polonczyk a , Franciscus J.M. Roeters b , Cornelis J. Kleverlaan b,∗ a

Department of Integrated Dentistry, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Objective. Nowadays direct and indirect resin composites are frequently applied to build up

Received 20 February 2013

the occlusion when extensive tooth wear took place. To achieve long-lasting restorations it

Received in revised form

is essential to obtain knowledge about their interactions due to occlusal contacts. Therefore,

12 November 2014

the two- and three-body wear between frequently used direct and indirect resin composites

Accepted 12 November 2014

was investigated.

Available online xxx

Materials and methods. The two- and three-body wear of three direct resin composites and three indirect resin composites, with Clearfil AP-X, Filtek Z250, and Filtek Supreme XT as

Keywords:

antagonists, were measured, using the ACTA wear device. The wear rates were determined

Wear

and the surfaces were evaluated with SEM.

Resin composite

Results. The most remarkable outcome was that the two-body wear rate of the different

Tooth wear

composites opposing the Z250 wheel were significantly higher. Furthermore, it was shown that the three-body wear rate was independent on the antagonist and in general higher than the two-body wear rate. Conclusions. To reduce abrasion of the opposing resin composite surface the resin composite fillers should consist of a softer glass, e.g. barium glass or in case of a harder filler the size should be reduced to nano-size. © 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

For many years resin composites are considered a viable treatment option for all types of restorations [1,2]. Nowadays direct and indirect resin composites are also frequently applied to build up the occlusion when extensive tooth wear took place [3–7]. The success of such a treatment will depend on the

∗

reason for the wear e.g. erosion, bruxism or a combination of both. Reason for failure of direct resin composite restorations appears to be fracture, wear, and secondary caries [2,8,9]. The best correlation of clinical wear, according to a denture model study of 13 experimental hybrid composites, was between wear, fracture toughness, and flexural strength [2]. Subjecting resin composites to dynamical loading prior to fracture testing significantly reduces the fracture strength compared

Corresponding author at: Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 20 5980257. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.J. Kleverlaan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.007 0109-5641/© 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Osiewicz MA, et al. Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites. Dent Mater (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS


2

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx–xxx

Table 1 – Materials properties of materials used according to the manufacturers data. Code

Material

Fillerd,e

Matrix/fillers

Z250

Filtek Z250a

Bis-GMA, UDMA, bis-EMA, zirconia, silica

SFY

Sinfonya

UDMA, Bis-EMA, borosilicate glass, pyrogenic silica

HM

Heliomolarb

ADO

Adorob

EAD

Estenia C&Bc

APX

Clearfil APXc

APX Antagonist

Clearfil APXc

Z250Antagonist

Filtek Z250a

Bis-GMA, urethane dimethacrylate, decandiol dimethacrylate, silicon dioxide, ytterbium trifluoride, copolymer Cycloaliphatic dimethacrylate, urethane dimethacrylates, decamethylenedimethacrylate copolymer, highly dispersed silicon dioxide Bis-GMA, UDMA, decandiol dimethacrylate, surface treated alumina, silanated glass ceramics Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, silanated barium glass filler, silanated silica filler, silanated colloidal silica, dl-camphorquinone Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, silanated barium glass filler, silanated silica filler, silanated colloidal silica, camphorquinone Bis-GMA, UDMA, bis-EMA, zirconia, silica

FS Antagonist

Filtek Supreme XTa

a b c d e

Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGMA, bis-EMA, zirconia filler, silica filler

Batch/exp/color

78 0.19–3.3 ␮m 45 0.5–0.7 ␮m 67 0.04–0.2 ␮m 65 10–100 nm

20050727 2008-06 A3 216232 2008-12/A2 H24852 2009-08/A3 H22320 2008-06/A3

92 2 ␮m 86 3 ␮m 86 3 ␮m 78 0.19–33 ␮m 73 5–75 nm

219AA 2008-05/A2 1098AA 2008-04/A3 00480A 2014-08/A2 N182171 2013-05/A2 N105945 2012-06/A3B

3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein. Kuraray Dental, Tokyo, Japan. In weight%. Size of fillers.

Table 2 – Mean two- and three body wear and standard deviation in parentheses in micrometers of different combination of materials. Two-body wear Antagonist

Three-body wear

Specimen

Wear rate

APX

Z250 SFY HM ADO EST APX

3.5 (0.2)deA 1.1 (0.2)deB 1.9 (0.3)deC 4.2 (1.1)dD 0.8 (0.2)eE 1.5 (0.3)deF

FS


2.4 (0.2)cA 2.0 (0.2)cB 2.3 (0.2)cC 4.0 (0.6)cD 2.1 (0.2)cE 4.6 (0.5)cG

Z250


SS


Antagonist

Specimen

Wear rate

APX


40.7 (0.6) 68.8 (1.5) 57.5 (2.2)C 51.4 (3.2) 24.0 (0.8) 33.0 (0.8)

FS


34.7 (1.4)A 71.2 (2.2)B 56.8 (2.0)C 46.9 (3.6)D 19.0 (0.6)E 28.3 (0.8)F

25.8 (1.8)b 17.7 (3.9) 26.3 (7.0)b 42.3 (4.2) 17.2 (1.1) 23.8 (1.3)b

Z250


35.6 (1.1)A 71.4 (3.2)B 59.7 (3.0)C 50.0 (4.1)D 17.5 (0.5)E 26.6 (0.6)F

7.0 (1.4) 3.0 (1.2)aB 9.6 (3.1) 17.3 (3.3) 2.9 (0.4)aE 2.9 (0.3)aFG

SS


33.4 (1.3)A 74.3 (5.5)B 57.9 (4.9)C 47.4 (3.8)D 18.9 (1.0)E 28.5 (0.4)F

The two- and three-body wear rates were independent statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA (P < 0.01). The capital characters show the wear rate was not statistical different between the different antagonist materials. The small characters indicate the wear rate was not statistical different within the different antagonist materials.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


3

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx–xxx

Table 3 – Mean roughness (Ra) of surface of Figs. 4 and 5 after two- and three-body wear. Two-body wear

Three-body wear

Ra Z250 SFY HM ADO EST APX

0.15 (0.04) 0.13 (0.03) 0.08 (0.03) 0.13 (0.05) 0.13 (0.05) 0.11 (0.05)

Ra Z250 SFY HM ADO EST APX

0.23 (0.07) 0.27 (0.11) 0.32 (0.06) 0.31 (0.08) 0.36 (0.07) 0.27 (0.06)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20

APX

FS




0


10

Z250

SS

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

APX

FS



0


10 Z250 SFY HM ADO EST APX

The materials tested in this study, their manufacturers and batch numbers are summarized in Table 1. Three direct resin composites and three indirect resin composites were selected. Within each group of materials differences between the type, size and amount of filler existed. For the direct resin composite the filler-load decreased from APX > Z250 > HM (see Table 1). Looking at the hardness of the filler it decreased from Z250 > APX = HM [11]. For the indirect resin composite the filler-load decreased from EST > SFY = ADO (see Table 1). The hardness of the filler decreased from EST = SFY > ADO. The two-body and three-body wear were evaluated with the ACTA wear machine [13,14]. The wear machine is equipped with two wheels of different diameters which rotate in the same directions with about 15% difference in the circumferential speed while having near contact. Two-body wear can be determined by full contact of the specimen wheel and antagonist wheel, while three-body wear can be determined by using an abrasive medium as third body between both wheels. The specimen wheel accommodated six different composites. The composite specimens are placed on the circumference of the wheel while the other wheel serves as antagonist. The antagonist wheel was made of stainless steel (SS) with extra hardening of the outer surface or of composite APX or the nano-composite, FS, or Z250. Both FS and Z250 contain zirconium as the filler but in different size. All restorative materials were handled and cured according to the manufacturers’

werar rate (um / 200.000 rev)

Materials and methods

90

werar rate (um / 200.000 rev)

2.

instructions. The specimen wheels were kept wet at RT at all times throughout a period of 3 years. The antagonist wheel was duplicated by taking an impression of stainless steel wheel by silicon material (Heavy Tray, Correct Flow, Flextine, USA) in a metal ring. Duplicated composite antagonist wheels were made in layers and cured in light oven for 180 s (Denta Color XS, 1992, Kulzer). For evaluating the two-body wear the wheels were placed in distilled water. For the three-body wear the wheels are placed in a slurry of white millet seeds in a buffer solution (pH 7) as reported previously [13,14]. For both the two-body wear and

Z250

SS

Fig. 1 – Graphical representation of the two-body (top) and three-body (bottom) wear rate of different materials (Z250/SFY/HM/ADO/EST/APX) with APX, FS, Z250 and stainless steel (SS), respectively, as antagonist. 90 werar rate (um / 200.000 rev)

with values obtained after static loading [10]. When selecting a resin composite to increase the occlusal vertical dimension information about the filler is important as the filler largely determines the mechanical properties of the material. The content, size and hardness of the filler, as well as the silanization of the filler will influence the effect on the composite itself as well as the antagonist. Resin composites with quartz and zirconium as the filler will abrade the opposing enamel [11]. To achieve long-lasting results resin composites should possess a high resistance against fracture and wear. In vivo and in vitro wear have been studied extensively [12]. However, information about the interaction of the wear rates between resin composites with various compositions and in different combinations is still scarce. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wear between direct and indirect resin composite with different compositions in a two-body and three-body wear test.

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

APX

FS

Z250 2 body

metal

APX

FS

Z250

metal

3 body

Fig. 2 – Graphical representation pooled (Z250/SFY/HM/ADO/EST/APX) wear rates with APX, FS, Z250 and stainless steel (SS) as antagonist.



4


the three-body wear the wheels were pressed against each other with a spring force of 15 N. A test run consisted of 200,000 cycles (55½ h) of the specimen wheel at a rotational speed of 1 Hz. After the experiment, 10 tracings (n = 10) were taken at fixed positions on the worn surface of specimens (PRK profilometer no. 20702, Perthen GmbH, Hannover, Germany) to determine the loss of material in ␮m. The average wear rate and their standard deviations was calculated from these profiles. The experimental details of this procedure have been reported previously [13,14]. The roughness (Ra) of the specimens was determined by a profilometer (PRK profilometer no. 20702, Perthen GmbH, Hannover, Germany). The surface of the specimens was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (XL 20, Philips, Eindhoven, NL). A three-way ANOVA test, with wear two- or three-body, the resin composite, and the type of material for the antagonist as

variables, was used to test possible significant differences in wear rate. The two- and three-body wear rates were independent statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA (P < 0.01) and Tukey post hoc test (P < 0.01) with the resin composite and the type of material for the antagonist as variables. The correlation coefficient (r2 ) between the wear rate and the filler content was also calculated. The software used was Sigma Stat 3.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).

3.

Results

The wear rates are summarized in Table 2 and graphically depicted in Fig. 1. Three-way ANOVA showed that the type of wear two- or three-body (F = 25466.2; P < 0.001), the resin composite (F = 1453.7; P < 0.001) and the type of material for the antagonist (F = 603.3; P < 0.001) have a significant effect on the wear rate. Also all interactions were significant

Fig. 3 – SEM image (1000×) of the antagonist wheel of APX (top), FS (middle), and Z250 (bottom) after the two-body (left) and three-body wear experiment. Please cite this article in press as: Osiewicz MA, et al. Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites. Dent Mater (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.007



(F = 16.6–1293.9; P < 0.001). The statistical differences among the materials analyzed with two-way ANOVA are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

3.1.

Two-body wear

The two-body wear rate with APX and FS as antagonist wheel was for all tested composites the same (P < 0.001) and less than for the specimens with Z250 as antagonist. APX contains a relatively soft bariumglass and FS the hard zirconia filler, but nano-sized. The same type of filler is used in Z250 and then the larger size of the particles in this material appears to be more abrasive for the opposing surface. Also the two-body wear rate for SFY, EST and APX with SS as antagonist was not significantly different compared to the antagonist wheels of APX and FS. The most remarkable outcome was that the two-body wear rate of the different composites opposing the Z250 wheel were

5

significantly higher. The SEM pictures show that all the resin composites get a smooth surface with little variation between the materials. The same counts for the antagonistic materials though Z250 produces a slightly rougher surface than APX and FS. The roughness values measured with a profilometer did not demonstrate significant differences in roughness of the tested materials.

3.2.

Three-body wear

The three-body wear rate of all composites investigated were significantly different, and increased from EST < APX < Z250 < ADO < HM to SFY. Since it was an threebody wear experiment the influence of the antagonist was limited as expected. Only for APX as antagonist the wear rate was somewhat higher. To show the differences between the two- and three-body with the different antagonist wheels

Fig. 4 – SEM image (1000×) of the specimen wheel of Z250, APX, SFY, EST, HM, and ADO after the two-body wear experiment. The antagonist wheel of this experiment was APX. Please cite this article in press as: Osiewicz MA, et al. Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites. Dent Mater (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.007


6


Fig. 5 – SEM image (1000×) of the specimen wheel of Z250, APX, SFY, EST, HM, and ADO after the three-body wear experiment. The antagonist wheel of this experiment was APX.

the wear rate of all composites in the specimen wheel were pooled and graphically depicted in Figs. 2 and 3. The three-body wear test results in a different surface under SEM. As in the three-body wear test the softer part of the resin composite, being the resin, is worn away and the surface reflects the composition of the filler. APX with an average filler particle size of 3 ␮m produces the roughest surface, both in the specimen wheel and the antagonist, followed by EST > Z250, both in the specimen wheel and the antagonist and, SFY > HM = ADO = FS in specimen wheel. Roughness values measured with a profilometer were in all cases significantly higher than in the two-body wear test but did not demonstrate significant differences in roughness of the tested materials. The correlation coefficient between the two- and threebody wear rate and the filler content of the composites in

specimen wheel were also calculated with r2 = 0.02 and 0.94 (P < 0.001), respectively, as result.

4.

Discussion

The results of this study show a different behavior of the resin composites when loaded in two-body or three body wear test. In case of a two-body set up attrition is simulated and wear is influenced by the type of composite and material used in the wheel and the antagonist wheel. The antagonist wheel produces less wear of the opposing surface when the filler is composed of a softer barium glass or the size of the hard zirconia filler is of nano-scale. If the zirconia filler is 0.6 ␮m in diameter more wear of the opposing resin composite becomes evident. When the specimen are opposed by




the stainless steel only the microfills demonstrate more wear compared to APX and FS, but still lower than against Z250. Clinically a direct and indirect microfilled resin composite demonstrated a high failure rate if used for increasing the occlusal vertical dimension [4]. Based on their study these authors concluded that resin composite is not suitable for the frequent of severe tooth wear. However, there is more evidence that the microfilled resin composites with their low filler content are sensitive for fatigue with chipping as a result. Attin et al. [3] had better results with a hybrid resin composite in a group of patients with extensive erosive wear. In the study of Hamburger et al. [5] APX was used in a group of patients including bruxers and the survival rate was high over a period of 3 years. In a laboratory study from Lohbauer et al. [10] APX was the resin composite with the lowest reduction in fracture strength after dynamic loading of a large set of materials. Also in the present study APX shows little twobody wear together with EST and SFY. When used for the antagonist wheel APX and FS demonstrate a lower abrasivity than Z250 and stainless steel. If this will be the same for enamel cannot be concluded from this study but nevertheless it will be more safe not to use an abrasive filler in a larger size. This and other studies [15,16] showed a different wear behavior in the two-body wear test compared with the three-body wear test. In our three-body experiment the material of the antagonist wheel has no effect on the wear of the resin composite specimens, showing the real nature of three-body wear. The three-body wear simulates abrasive wear which means that the softer parts of the resin composite, the resin matrix wears more rapidly than the filler. This is seen on the SEM pictures but also in the three-body wear rate. The three composites with a low filler load, the microfills. ADO and HM and the ultrafine hybrid SFY show more material loss than the composites with a higher filler load, EST, APX and Z250. As stated above clinical wear should correlate with the fracture toughness and flexural strength [2]. The flexural strength of these materials can be ranked as followed; Z250 ≈ APX ≈ EST > SFY ≈ ADO > HM [17–20]. Except for SFY, which is most probably due to the nature of the fillers of SFY, this ranking is in agreement with the ranking of the three-body wear of this experiment. Combining the two types of wear and the effects of the material used for the antagonist wheel pleads for the use of a resin composite with a higher filler load and a softer filler. A harder filler becomes less abrasive when the particle size is at nano-scale. The use of a hard filler with a large size should be avoided. Though the configuration of the fillers becomes evident on the SEM pictures made after the three-body wear test differences in roughness cannot be found with the profilometer.

5.

Conclusions

Based on this study a different wear behavior is observed for the two- and three-body wear test. Combining the results of the various tests gives proof to the use of resin composites with a filler load in excess of 60 (vol.%). To reduce abrasion of the opposing composite surface the filler should be a softer

7

glass like barium glass or in case of a harder filler the size should be reduced to nano-size.

references

[1] Lutz F, Krejci I. Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20:1138–44, 1146, 1148. [2] Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict. Dent Mater 2013;29:51–8. [3] Attin T, Filli T, Imfeld C, Schmidlin PR. Composite vertical bite reconstructions in eroded dentitions after 5.5 years: a case series. J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:73–9. [4] Bartlett D, Sundaram G. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:613–7. [5] Hamburger JT, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Kreulen CM, Roeters JJ, Huysmans MC. Clinical performance of direct composite restorations for treatment of severe tooth wear. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:585–93. [6] Pontons-Melo JC, Pizzatto E, Furuse AY, Mondelli J. A conservative approach for restoring anterior guidance: a case report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:171–82. [7] Vailati F, Vaglio G, Belser UC. Full-mouth minimally invasive adhesive rehabilitation to treat severe dental erosion: a case report. J Adhes Dent 2012;14:83–92. [8] da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34:427–35. [9] Wilder Jr AD, May Jr KN, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:135–42. [10] Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 2006;76:114–20. [11] Suzuki S, Suzuki SH, Cox CF. Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:74–80. [12] Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 2006;22:712–34. [13] de Gee AJ, Pallav P. Occlusal wear simulation with the ACTA wear machine. J Dent 1994;22(Suppl. 1):S21–7. [14] de Gee AJ, Pallav P, Davidson CL. Effect of abrasion medium on wear of stress-bearing composites and amalgam in vitro. J Dent Res 1986;65:654–8. [15] Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Kanehira M, Finger WJ. Two- and three-body wear of composite resins. Dent Mater 2012;28:1261–70. [16] Hu X, Shortall AC, Marquis PM. Wear of three dental composites under different testing conditions. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:756–64. [17] Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Invest 2009;13:427–38. [18] Ruttermann S, Wandrey C, Raab WHM, Janda R. Novel nano-particles as fillers for an experimental resin-based restorative material. Acta Biomater 2008;4:1846–53. [19] Gohring TN, Gallo L, Luthy H. Effect of water storage, thermocycling, the incorporation and site of placement of glass–fibers on the flexural strength of veneering composite. Dent Mater 2005;21:761–72. [20] Kawano F, Ohguri T, Ichikawa T, Matsumoto N. Influence of thermal cycles in water on flexural strength of laboratory-processed composite resin. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:703–7.


Relationship Between Simulated Gap Wear and Generalized Wear of Resin Luting Cements.

The relationship between composition and properties of posterior resin composites.

Metal-filled resin composites. II.

Extended-wear soft contact lenses.

Infection with contact lens wear.

Tear calcium levels and contact lens wear.

Keratoconus keratoplasty curvatures and contact lens wear.

In vitro wear of microfilled and visible light-cured composites.

Hygroscopic expansion kinetics of dental resin-composites.

Water and abrasive effects on three-body wear of composites.

Biochmical aspects of contact lens wear.

Contact lens wear is intrinsically inflammatory.

Tear plasmin activity with contact lens wear.

Meibomian therapy in problematic contact lens wear.

Volumetric wear of various orthotic appliance materials.

Fracture toughness determination of ceramic and resin-based dental composites.

Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin.

Annealing as a mechanism of increasing wear resistance of composites.

Effect of resin thickness on the microhardness and optical properties of bulk-fill resin composites.

The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites.

Laboratory wear investigation of resin posterior denture teeth.

Flowable Resin Composites: A Systematic Review and Clinical Considerations.

Microbiological characterization and effect of resin composites in cervical lesions.

Effect of resin thickness, and curing time on the micro-hardness of bulk-fill resin composites.