Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Wear resistance is an important property of the dental materials, particularly for large restorations in the posterior regions and for the patients suffering from parafunctional activities. Additionally, the wear resistance of flowable composite resin materials is a clinical concern, although they are popular among dentists because of their easy handling. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the wear resistance of nine composite resins both condensable (G-aenial posterior, Venus, GrandioSO, Tetric EvoCeram, Ceram X duo, Filtek Supreme XTE) and new-generation flowable resin composites (G-aenial Universal Flo, GrandioSO Flow and GrandioSO Heavy Flow) and to compare these results with amalgam.

Materials and method

Eight specimens of each material were subjected to two-body wear tests, using a chewing simulator. The wear region of each material was examined under profilometer, measuring the vertical loss (μm) and the volume loss (mm3) of the materials. Additionally, SEM analysis was performed to assess surfaces irregularities.

Results

The results showed significant difference of the vertical loss and the volume loss of the examined materials (p < 0.001). Although amalgam had the best wear resistance, two condensable resin composites (GrandioSO, Ceram X duo) and all flowable materials had no significant difference with amalgam. GrandioSO had the highest wear resistance and Filtek Supreme XTE the lowest wear resistance.

Conclusion

The majority of resin composites had good wear resistance and similar to amalgam.

Clinical relevance

Based on the in vitro measurements of two-body wear resistance, the new resin composites could replace amalgam for restorations placed in occlusal stress-bearing regions. New-generation flowable resin materials may also be used in occlusal contact restorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B (2011) Relevance of in-vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. Part 2: non-standardized tests of composite materials. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 121:916–930

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Turssi CP, De Moraes Purquerio B, Serra MC (2003) Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods—a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 65:280–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Condon JR, Ferracane JL (1996) Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater 12:218–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH (1996) Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent 24:141–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G (1989) Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68:1752–1754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT, Heo SJ (2001) A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear. J Oral Rehabil 28:1048–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hahnel S, Schultz S, Trempler C, Ach B, Handel G, Rosentritt M (2011) Two-body wear of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4:237–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jandt KD, Sigusch BW (2009) Future perspectives of resin-based dental materials. Dent Mater 25:1001–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heintze SD (2006) How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 22:712–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yesil ZD, Alapati S, Johnston W, Seghi RR (2008) Evaluation of the wear resistance of new nanocomposite resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 99:435–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Correr GM, Bruschi Alonso RC, Correr Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM, Ferracane JL (2006) In vitro wear of resin-based materials—simultaneous corrosive and abrasive wear. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 78:105–1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmage P, Nergiz I, Sito F, Platzer U, Rosentritt M (2009) Wear and hardness of different core build-up materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 91:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghazal M, Kern M (2009) The influence of antagonistic surface roughness on the wear of human enamel and nanofilled composite resin artificial teeth. J Prosthet Dent 101:342–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V (2006) A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials. Dent Mater 22:1051–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Musanje L, Ferracane JL, Ferracane LL (2006) Effects of resin formulation and nanofiller surface treatment on in vitro wear of experimental hybrid resin composite. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 77:120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Clelland NL, Pagnotto MP, Kerby RE, Seghi RR (2005) Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite. J Prosthet Dent 93:153–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Serra MC (2005) Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. Dent Mater 21:641–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vogel K (2005) Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials 26:4932–4937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cha HS, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC (2004) Evaluation of wear resistance of dental resin composites with a 3D profilometer. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 71:414–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Adey JD (2002) Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater 18:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shortall AC, Hu XQ, Marquis PM (2002) Potential countersample materials for in vitro simulation wear testing. Dent Mater 18:246–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Condon JR, Ferracane JL (1997) In vitro wear of composite with varied cure, filler level, and filler treatment. J Dent Res 76:1405–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Krejci I, Lutz F, Zedler C (1992) Effect of contact area size on enamel and composite wear. J Dent Res 71:1413–1416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW (1994) Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dent Mater 10:269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gibbs GH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, Brehnan K, Walsh EK, Holbrook WB (1981) Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. J Prosthet Dent 46:443–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL (1993) Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 69:425–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhou ZR, Zheng J (2008) Tribology of dental materials. A review. J Phys D Appl Phys 41:113001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2007) Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23:51–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH (2004) Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater 20:277–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nagarajan VS, Jahanmir S, Thompson VP (2004) In vitro contact wear of dental composites. Dent Mater 20:63–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM (2004) Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 29:269–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mota EG, Hörlle L, Oshima HM, Hirakata LM (2012) Evaluation of inorganic particles of composite resins with nanofiller content. Stomatologija 14(4):103–107

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Topcu FT, Erdemir U, Sahinkesen G, Yildiz E, Uslan I, Acikel C (2010) Evaluation of microhardness, surface roughness, and wear behavior of different types of resin composites polymerized with two different light sources. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 92(2):470–478

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Han JM, Zhang H, Choe HS, Lin H, Zheng G, Hong G (2014) Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin. Dent Mater J. doi:10.4012/dmj.2013-339

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J et al (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:775–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C (2007) The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 138:763–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31:395–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shenoy A (2008) Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. J Conserv Dent 11:99–107

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental Clinic 1-Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Glückstrasse 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Dimitra Lazaridou, Renan Belli, Anselm Petschelt & Ulrich Lohbauer

Authors
  1. Dimitra Lazaridou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renan Belli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anselm Petschelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Lohbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitra Lazaridou.

Additional information

Remark

The present work was performed in Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen- Nürnberg (FAU) in fulfillment of the requirements for obtaining the degree “Dr. med. dent” from the first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lazaridou, D., Belli, R., Petschelt, A. et al. Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1485–1492 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1373-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1373-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation