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


  • 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.




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


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.


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),


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)),


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


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


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


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),


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),


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




How to Cite

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



Original Articles