Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study.

Authors

  • Maryam Fakher Ibrahim College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq.
  • Bahar Jafaar Selivany College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq.
  • Abduloma Baraka Ali Al Mustfa University College/ Department of Dentistry.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2023.20

Keywords:

Bulk fill, Self-adhesive, Abrasive resistance, Microhardness Composite, Surefil one

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil
one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative.
Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8
mm width) in each group (n=10) were fabricated. GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One
Bulk fill restorative and GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. By placing the material in a mold in a single increment then curing. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear
testing. The samples weighted before and after the brushing to measure the weight loss. For
the microhardness test, thirty cylindrical specimens (6 mm× 8 mm) (n= 10) were fabricated to
assess the microhardness, top and bottom surfaces were tested using Vicker Hardness test. The
results were analyized with a one-way ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparisons were examined in
Tukey test.
Results: Abrasive Resistance results, Surefil one (9.52gr) and Beautifil bulk (4.16gr) showed an
increase in weight after brushing, while Filtek one bulkfill (-0.85gr) showed a decrease in
weight.Microhardness test results, Beautifil bulk showed the highest number of VH (74.83) followed by Surefil one (70.61) and Filtek one bulkfill (62.95).
Conclusion: Beautifil bulk was more resistant to abrasion in comparison to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. The great weight loss was observed in One bulk fill. Great weight
gain was observed in Surefil one self-adhesive. Beautifil bulk showed the highest VH number
compare to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. Filtek one bulk fill showed low resistance
and low hardness number.

References

Rathke, A., Pfefferkorn, F., McGuire, M. K.,

Heard, R. H., & Seemann, R. (2022). One-year

clinical results of restorations using a novel selfadhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-9.

van Dijken, J. W., & Pallesen, U. (2017). Bulk‐

filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐

decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6‐year evaluation. European Journal of

Oral Sciences, 125(4), 303-309.

Abdelrahman, M. H., Mahmoud, E. M., Ghoneim,

M. M., & Kammar, A. A. (2016). Comparative

study of microleakage and shear bond strength

between bulk fill and self adhesive flowable composite resins. Alexandria Dental Journal, 41(3),

-327.

Yazici, A. R., Kutuk, Z. B., Ergin, E., Karahan, S., &

Antonson, S. A. (2022). Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations, 26(1), 417-

Nakano, E. L., de Souza, A. S. C., Boaro, L. C. C.,

Catalani, L. H., Braga, R. R., & Gonçalves, F.

(2020). Polymerization stress and gap formation

of self-adhesive, bulk-fill and flowable composite

resins. Operative Dentistry, 45(6), E308-E316.

van Dijken, J. W., Pallesen, U., & Benetti, A.

(2019). A randomized controlled evaluation of

posterior resin restorations of an altered resin

modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed

bioactivity. Dental Materials, 35(2), 335-343.

Sidhu, S. K., & Nicholson, J. W. (2016). A review

of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Journal of functional biomaterials, 7(3), 16.

Klee, J. E., Renn, C., & Elsner, O. (2020). Development of novel polymer technology for a new

class of restorative dental materials. J. Adhes.

Dent, 22, 35-45.

Strini, B. S., de Lima Marques, J. F., Pereira, R.,

Sobral-Souza, D. F., Pecorari, V. G. A., Liporoni, P.

C. S., & Aguiar, F. H. B. (2022). Comparative Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: Knoop Microhardness, Diametral Tensile Strength and Degree of Conversion. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, 14, 225.

Barakat, O. A. (2020). Comparative evaluation

of wear resistance of different bulk-fill composite

and surface roughness with antagonist human

enamel and porcelain. Egyptian Dental Journal, 66(2-April (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)),

-1395.

Nayyer, M., Zahid, S., Hassan, S. H., Mian, S. A.,

Mehmood, S., Khan, H. A., ... & Khan, A. S. (2018).

Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials. European Journal of Dentistry, 12(01), 057-

Comba, A., Scotti, N., Maravić, T., Mazzoni, A.,

Carossa, M., Breschi, L., & Cadenaro, M. (2020).

Vickers hardness and shrinkage stress evaluation

of low and high viscosity bulk-fill resin composite. Polymers, 12(7), 1477.

Catelan, A., de Araújo, L. S. N., da Silveira, B. C.

M., Kawano, Y., Ambrosano, G. M. B., Marchi, G.

M., & Aguiar, F. H. B. (2015). Impact of the distance of light curing on the degree of conversion

and microhardness of a composite resin. Acta

Odontologica Scandinavica, 73(4), 298-301.

karacolak G, Turkun LS, Boyacioglu H, Ferracane

JL (2018). Influence of increment thickness on

radiant energy and microhardness of bulk-fill

resin composites. Dent Mater J.;37(2):206–213.

Asadian, F., Shahidi, Z., & Moradi, Z. (2021).

Evaluation of Wear Properties of Four Bulk-Fill

Composites: Attrition, Erosion, and Abrasion. BioMed Research International, 2021.

Cao L, Zhao X, Gong X, Zhao S. An in vitro investigation of wear resistance and hardness of composite resins. Int J Clin Exp Med 2013 Jun;6

(6):423-430

Turssi CP, De Moraes Purquerio B, Serra MC.

Wear of dental resin composites: insights into

underlying processes and assessment methods –

a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater

May;65(2):280-285.

Suzuki, T., Kyoizumi, H., Finger, W. J., Kanehira,

M., Endo, T., Utterodt, A., ... & Komatsu, M.

(2009). Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid

resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with

calcium carbonate slurry. Dental materials journal, 28(6), 708-716.

Monteiro B, Spohr AM (2015). Surface roughness of composite resins after simulated toothbrushing with different dentifrices. J Int Oral

Health;7:1‑5

Shimokawa, C. A. K., Giannini, M., André, C. B.,

Sahadi, B. O., Faraoni, J. J., Palma-Dibb, R. G., ... &

Price, R. B. (2019). In vitro evaluation of surface

properties and wear resistance of conventional

and bulk-fill resin-based composites after brushing with a dentifrice. Operative dentistry, 44(6),

-647.

Kaleem, M., Khan, A. S., Rehman, I. U., & Wong,

F. S. (2015). Effect of beverages on viscoelastic

properties of resin-based dental composites. Materials, 8(6), 2863-2872.

Ferracane, J. L. (1994). Elution of leachable

components from composites. Journal of oral

rehabilitation, 21(4), 441-452.

Braga, S. R. M., Tachibana, T. Y., Garone-Netto,

N., & Sobral, M. Â. P. (2010). Abrasion resistance

of different resin composites. J Health Sci Inst, 29

(2), 85-8.

Li, E. G., Waddell, J. N., & Choi, J. J. E. (2021).

Wear Resistance of Bulk-Fill Dental Resins Cured

by Different Light-Curing

Settings. Biotribology, 28, 100197.

Bayrak, G. D., Yaman-Dosdogru, E., & SelviKuvvetli, S. (2022). The Effect of Two Different

Light-Curing Units and Curing Times on Bulk-Fill

Restorative Materials. Polymers, 14(9), 1885.

Scougall-Vilchis, R. J., Hotta, Y., Hotta, M.,

Idono, T., & Yamamoto, K. (2009). Examination

of composite resins with electron microscopy,

microhardness tester and energy dispersive Xray microanalyzer. Dental materials journal, 28

(1), 102-112.

El-Safty, S.; Akhtar, R.; Silikas, N. (2012); Watts,

D.C. Nanomechanical properties of dental resincomposites. Dent. Mater., 28, 1292–1300.

Watts, D. C. (2005). Reaction kinetics and mechanics in photo-polymerised networks. Dental

Materials, 21(1), 27-35.

Frassetto, G., , Marchesi A., Visintini, E., Diolosà, M., Turco, G., Salgarello, S., ... & Breschi, L.

(2013). Influence of ageing on self‐etch adhesives: one‐step vs. two‐step systems. European

journal of oral sciences, 121(1), 43-49.

Bucuta, S., & Ilie, N. (2014). Light transmittance

and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs.

conventional resin based composites. Clinical

oral investigations, 18(8), 1991-2000.

Rueggeberg, F. A., Giannini, M., Arrais, C. A. G.,

& Price, R. B. T. (2017). Light curing in dentistry

and clinical implications: a literature review. Brazilian oral research, 31.

Pereira, R., Lima, D. A. N. L., Giorgi, M. C. C.,

Marchi, G. M., & Aguiar, F. H. B. (2019). Evaluation of bond strength, nanoleakage, and marginal adaptation of bulk-fill composites submitted to

thermomechanical aging. J Adhes Dent, 21(3),

-64.

Caldas D, Almeida J, Correr-Sobrinho L, et al

(2003). Influence of curing tip distance on resin

composite Knoop hardness number, using three

different light curing units. Operative DentistryUniversity Of Washington;28(3):315–320.

Al Azmi, M. M., Hashem, M. I., Assery, M. K., Al

Sayed, M. S., & Kumar, A. (2017). An in-vitro

evaluation of mechanical properties and surface

roughness of bulk fill vs incremental fill resin

composites. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res, 4(1), 37-42

Downloads

Published

2023-12-22

How to Cite

1.
Ibrahim MF, Selivany BJ, Ali AB. Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. EDJ [Internet]. 2023 Dec. 22 [cited 2024 Mar. 5];6(2):183-92. Available from: https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/237

Issue

Section

Original Articles