Search

Statement of Problem: Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) restorations are in contact with the antagonist tooth, either a natural tooth or a restoration. Therefore, clinicians should be aware of the wear resistance of CAD-CAM materials and the wear behavior of the antagonist., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM materials., Material and Methods: In a 2-body wear test, the materials IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent AG), Vita Suprinity (Vita Zahnfabrik), Lava Ultimate (3M ESPE), Vita Enamic (Vita Zahnfabrik), and Lava Plus (3M ESPE) acted as abraders and, together with bovine enamel, also as antagonists. Each antagonist wheel ran against each abrader wheel for 200000 cycles, with a spring force of 15 N, and at a rotational speed of 1 Hz in distilled water. The wear rate was determined with a surface profilometer. The surfaces were observed with scanning electron microscopy, and their hardness, coefficient of friction, and roughness were evaluated., Results: Lava Plus and IPS e.max CAD exhibited the highest potential for wear of Lava Ultimate. These 2 materials, together with Vita Suprinity, provided the highest wear of enamel and Vita Enamic. Vita Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD had higher wear than Lava Plus, and the inverse was also true. Vita Enamic and Lava Ultimate were among the materials that caused the lowest wear of enamel and all other evaluated materials. Scanning electron microscopy images revealed that except for Lava Ultimate, all other materials damaged enamel, in which Vita Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD were more aggressive when sliding against the materials. Lava Plus had the greatest hardness, followed by Vita Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD, Vita Enamic, and then Lava Ultimate. The coefficient of friction varied from 0.42 to 0.53. The Vita Enamic and Lava Ultimate showed the highest surface roughness., Conclusions: The nanofilled composite resin and polymer-infiltrated ceramic were more antagonist-friendly (whether enamel or CAD-CAM material) than glass-ceramics and zirconia. Care should be taken when selecting the material that will contact mainly with glass-ceramics. Hardness should also be considered when selecting a material., (Copyright © 2018 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

(1) Objective: To evaluate and compare the depth of cure (DOC) of two bulk-fill flowable composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative and Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill), two conventional flowable composites (Filtek Supreme XTE Flowable Restorative and G-ænial Flo X) and one high-strength universal injectable composite (G-ænial Universal Injectable). (2) Methods: specimens were placed in a stainless-steel mold with an orifice of 4 mm in diameter and 10 mm in depth and light-cured for 20 s using a light emitting diode (LED) light-curing unit (LCU) with an irradiance of 1000 mW/cm2; depth of cure was assessed using the ISO 4049 scrape technique, and the absolute length of the specimen of cured composite was measured in millimeters with a digital caliper. The same procedure was repeated with 14 samples for each material under investigation, for a total number of 70 test bodies. Material roughness and hardness results were also investigated using, respectively, a 3D laser confocal microscope (LEXT OLS 4100; Olympus) at ×5 magnification and a Vickers diamond indenter (Vickers microhardness tester, Shimadzu®, Kyoto, Japan) under 10-N load and a 30 s dwell time. SEM images at 3000 and 9000 magnification were collected in order to study the materials' filler content. Statistical analysis were performed by a commercial statistical software package (SPSS) and data were analyzed using multiple comparison Dunnett's test. (3) Results: The average DOC of both bulk-fill composites was more than 4 mm, as a range of 3.91 and 4.53 mm with an average value of 4.24 and 4.12 mm, while that of the conventional flowable composites was much lower, as a range of 2.47 and 2.90 mm with an average value of 2.58 and 2.84 mm; DOC of the high-strength injectable composite was greater than the one of traditional composites, but not to the level of bulk-fill materials, as a range of 2.82 and 3.01 mm with an average value of 3.02 mm. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences (p-values < 0.05) in the depth of cure between bulk fill flowable composites and other composites, while there was no difference (p-values > 0.05) between the materials of the same type. (4) Conclusions: Bulk-fill flowable composites showed significantly higher depth of cure values than both traditional flowable composites and high-strength injectable composites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]