Comparison of wear-resistance of class V restorative materials

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Compomers and resin-modified glass ionomers have been developed to improve the physical properties of traditional glass ionomer cements. This project compared the toothbrush wear-resistance of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) and three resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials (Fuji II LC, Photac-Fil, Vitremer) to that of two resin-based composites (Herculite XRV, Silux Plus). Specimens (n = 7) were prepared according to manufacturers’ instructions and stored in a humidor for 48 hours prior to testing. The specimens were subjected to 120,000 strokes at 1.5 Hz, using a brush-head force of 200 g on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine. The slurry contained a 50:50 (w/w) mixture of toothpaste and deionized water. Abrasion-resistance was calculated by measuring specimen mass-loss prior to and subsequent to brushing. The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. Significant differences (p±.0001) in mass-loss were found, and loss ranged from 0.013 ± 0.003 g (Hytac) to 0.061 ± 0.009 g (Compoglass). No correlation (p=.959) between wear-resistance and experimentally determined filler content existed. This study showed that all but one hybrid resin-ionomer type material exhibited a resistance to toothbrush wear that was as good as or better than that of the two traditional resin-based composite materials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)309-314
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Volume10
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1998

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Compomers
Toothpastes
Glass Ionomer Cements
Analysis of Variance
Stroke
Head
Water
hytac
Compoglass
glass ionomer
Vitremer
Fuji II LC cement
Silux Plus
Dyract
Herculite XR
Photac-Fil

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Comparison of wear-resistance of class V restorative materials. / Frazier, Kevin B.; Rueggeberg, Frederick A.; Mettenburg, Donald J.

In: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Vol. 10, No. 6, 11.1998, p. 309-314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{984e0ddbf03549fc89ca3f2404acd0b8,
title = "Comparison of wear-resistance of class V restorative materials",
abstract = "Compomers and resin-modified glass ionomers have been developed to improve the physical properties of traditional glass ionomer cements. This project compared the toothbrush wear-resistance of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) and three resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials (Fuji II LC, Photac-Fil, Vitremer) to that of two resin-based composites (Herculite XRV, Silux Plus). Specimens (n = 7) were prepared according to manufacturers’ instructions and stored in a humidor for 48 hours prior to testing. The specimens were subjected to 120,000 strokes at 1.5 Hz, using a brush-head force of 200 g on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine. The slurry contained a 50:50 (w/w) mixture of toothpaste and deionized water. Abrasion-resistance was calculated by measuring specimen mass-loss prior to and subsequent to brushing. The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. Significant differences (p±.0001) in mass-loss were found, and loss ranged from 0.013 ± 0.003 g (Hytac) to 0.061 ± 0.009 g (Compoglass). No correlation (p=.959) between wear-resistance and experimentally determined filler content existed. This study showed that all but one hybrid resin-ionomer type material exhibited a resistance to toothbrush wear that was as good as or better than that of the two traditional resin-based composite materials.",
author = "Frazier, {Kevin B.} and Rueggeberg, {Frederick A.} and Mettenburg, {Donald J.}",
year = "1998",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00509.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "309--314",
journal = "Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry",
issn = "1496-4155",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of wear-resistance of class V restorative materials

AU - Frazier, Kevin B.

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick A.

AU - Mettenburg, Donald J.

PY - 1998/11

Y1 - 1998/11

N2 - Compomers and resin-modified glass ionomers have been developed to improve the physical properties of traditional glass ionomer cements. This project compared the toothbrush wear-resistance of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) and three resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials (Fuji II LC, Photac-Fil, Vitremer) to that of two resin-based composites (Herculite XRV, Silux Plus). Specimens (n = 7) were prepared according to manufacturers’ instructions and stored in a humidor for 48 hours prior to testing. The specimens were subjected to 120,000 strokes at 1.5 Hz, using a brush-head force of 200 g on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine. The slurry contained a 50:50 (w/w) mixture of toothpaste and deionized water. Abrasion-resistance was calculated by measuring specimen mass-loss prior to and subsequent to brushing. The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. Significant differences (p±.0001) in mass-loss were found, and loss ranged from 0.013 ± 0.003 g (Hytac) to 0.061 ± 0.009 g (Compoglass). No correlation (p=.959) between wear-resistance and experimentally determined filler content existed. This study showed that all but one hybrid resin-ionomer type material exhibited a resistance to toothbrush wear that was as good as or better than that of the two traditional resin-based composite materials.

AB - Compomers and resin-modified glass ionomers have been developed to improve the physical properties of traditional glass ionomer cements. This project compared the toothbrush wear-resistance of three compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) and three resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials (Fuji II LC, Photac-Fil, Vitremer) to that of two resin-based composites (Herculite XRV, Silux Plus). Specimens (n = 7) were prepared according to manufacturers’ instructions and stored in a humidor for 48 hours prior to testing. The specimens were subjected to 120,000 strokes at 1.5 Hz, using a brush-head force of 200 g on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine. The slurry contained a 50:50 (w/w) mixture of toothpaste and deionized water. Abrasion-resistance was calculated by measuring specimen mass-loss prior to and subsequent to brushing. The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test. Significant differences (p±.0001) in mass-loss were found, and loss ranged from 0.013 ± 0.003 g (Hytac) to 0.061 ± 0.009 g (Compoglass). No correlation (p=.959) between wear-resistance and experimentally determined filler content existed. This study showed that all but one hybrid resin-ionomer type material exhibited a resistance to toothbrush wear that was as good as or better than that of the two traditional resin-based composite materials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032248667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032248667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00509.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00509.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 10321201

AN - SCOPUS:0032248667

VL - 10

SP - 309

EP - 314

JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

SN - 1496-4155

IS - 6

ER -