Iatrogenic tooth abrasion comparisons among composite materials and finishing techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Many different rotary instruments are available for shaping composite restorations. Whether use of these instruments causes undesirable iatrogenic abrasion of either the tooth surface or the composite restorative material is unknown. Assuming that damage occurs, which technique is least damaging is unknown. PURPOSE: This in vitro study quantified the loss of surface enamel and dentin surrounding Class V preparations during composite shaping and finishing procedures. The susceptibility of 2 types of composites to tooth abrasion was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities were prepared at the amelodentinal junction of 36 human molar teeth. The teeth were randomly assigned to 6 groups of 6 teeth each. They were restored with either a low- or high-viscosity composite (Revolution or Prodigy Condensable, respectively) and finished with aluminum oxide disks, tungsten carbide burs, or ultrafine finishing diamond burs. The preparations were profiled before and after restoration. After each finishing procedure, morphological measurements of surface changes in the dentin and enamel were made and reported as volume (in cubic millimeters); maximum depth, mean maximum depth, and mean depth (in micrometers); and surface area (in square millimeters). The results were subjected to a 2-way analysis of variance for restorative material and finishing technique (P<.05). RESULTS: Aluminum oxide disks removed significantly less enamel than tungsten carbide burs or ultrafine finishing diamond burs, as measured by volume, maximum depth, mean maximum depth, mean depth, and surface area (P<.05). Conversely, aluminum oxide disks removed significantly greater dentin than either tungsten carbide burs or ultrafine finishing burs as measured by loss of volume, mean depth, and surface area (P<.05). There was no significant difference in the loss of surrounding tooth substance based on resin type (low or high viscosity). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the 3 finishing systems tested resulted in varying degrees of iatrogenic abrasion of enamel and dentin. The composite material used had no significant effect on abrasion of the surrounding enamel or dentin.     

Diffusion of water in composite filling materials.

The uptake of water by composite filling materials seems to be a diffusion-controlled process; the magnitudes of the diffusion coefficients obtained are consistent with the uptake base through the resin matrix. The diffusion coefficients measured show the diffusion coefficient to decrease with increasing water concentration, which accounts for the protracted nature of the attainment of equilibrium uptake. Diffusion coefficients are generally lower in these composites based on difunctional methacrylates, compared with methyl methacrylate, presumably because of the highly cross-linked nature of the former.     

Contraction stresses of composite resin filling materials.

The polymerization shrinkage of composite resin filling materials and the tensile stresses developed when the shrinkage is restrained were measured in an in vitro experiment. This allows an estimation to be made of the forces exerted upon the enamel walls of cavities filled with the resin in the acid etch technique. The results indicate that the stresses acting on the enamel are low compared to the tensile strength of the enamel.     

Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials

This study determined the three-body abrasive wear resistance of two packable composites (P-60; Solitaire 2), an ion-releasing composite (Ariston AT), a hybrid composite (Tetric Ceram) and an ormocer (Admira). The study also looked at the correlation between wear resistance and hardness of the composites. Three-body wear testing was performed using an ACTA wear machine with 15 N contact force using millet seed as the third body. Wear depth (microm) was measured by profilometry after 200,000 cycles. The hardness test was performed using a digital microhardness tester (load: 500 g; dwell time: 15 seconds). The data were analyzed by using Kruskal Wallis (p < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences among the three body abrasive wear of the composites. The ranking from least to most were as follows: Filtek P-60 < Solitaire 2 < Ariston AT < Tetric Ceram < Admira. Filtek P-60 showed the highest microhardness value. No other significant differences in hardness were observed among the different resin composites (P-60 > AristonAT = Tetric Ceram = Solitaire 2 = Admira). The results of this study indicate that there are significant differences in the wear resistance of the resin composites. The correlation between hardness and wear was significant with a correlation coefficient of r:-0.91. A significant negative correlation exists between hardness and three-body wear of resin composites.     

Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placement of two restorative materials, including a compomer (F2000, 3M ESPE) and a resin composite (Silux Plus, 3M ESPE), in non-carious cervical lesions using a self-etching bonding agent (F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive) and a fifth generation bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and to evaluate and compare these restorations for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, retention, surface texture and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for three years. F2000 and Silux Plus were used to restore the teeth with moderate-sized non-carious cervical lesions. F2000 was placed using two different bonding agents: F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive (F2000SE group) and Single Bond (F2000SB group); Silux Plus was placed as a control using Single Bond (SiluxSB group). Thirty restorations of each material/dentin adhesive combination were placed. All restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually for three years using a modified USPHS scale. At the end of the three-year recall, Silux Plus had significantly better surface texture than F2000 (p < 0.0001). In addition, marginal adaptation significantly worsened over time starting at one year, as compared with baseline, for all groups (p < 0.0001). When anatomic form was compared between F2000 and Silux Plus, the p-value was 0.085, demonstrating that F2000 was slightly better than Silux Plus. Likewise, when comparing marginal adaptation between the F2000SE and SiluxSB groups, the p-value was 0.064, demonstrating that F2000 with the self-etching primer had better margins than Silux Plus with Single Bond. No other differences were found among the groups.     

乳牙空气喷磨对三种材料充填微渗漏的影响

目的体外评价乳牙空气喷磨备洞后,三种材料充填微渗漏情况的比较。方法30颗离体乳磨牙分为3组,均空气喷磨备洞。组Ⅰ(n=10):纳米复合树脂充填。组Ⅱ(n=10):流动纳米树脂充填。组Ⅲ(n=10):光固化纳米玻璃离子充填。热循环处理后亚甲基蓝溶液染色观察。结果三组间充填体微渗漏率差异有显著性(P<0.001),以流动树脂微渗漏率最低(P<0.05)。结论可流动纳米树脂用于乳牙空气喷磨备洞后充填可获得较好的边缘封闭性。     

Cytocompatibility of filling pastes by primary teeth root simulating model

Odontology - Evaluate the cytocompatibility of Calen®/ZO, Calcicur®, Vitapex®, Endoflas®, and zinc oxide/eugenol-based (ZOE) root canal pastes (RCP) to human primary osteoblasts...     

Technological and clinical studies on various plastic filling materials]

The authors determined the hardness, water absorption and thermal expansion of different composites. The clinical trial of two of these materials is followed by conclusions as to their use in practice. With regard to the anterior region, the composites are in a sense an enrichment of assortment of filling materials. But due to their still insufficient physico-chemical properties, they are no alternative of cast or amalgam fillings.