Localized wear of compomer restorative materials.

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the localized wear of six compomer restorative materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten specimens of Dyract, Dyract AP, F2000, Compoglass F, Elan and Hytac were prepared in a custom fixture and polished. A pretest surface profile was generated using an MTS 3-D surface profilometer and the specimens were subjected to 400,000 cycles in a Leinfelder wear machine equipped with a conical stylus tip to simulate localized wear. A post-test profile was generated and the before and after profiles were fitted and analyzed using AnSur 3-D software. The total volume loss and depth of the wear facet on each specimen was calculated and statistical analysis was accomplished (ANOVA and Tukey's test).

RESULTS

Volume loss (mm3) was as follows: F2000, 0.027 +/- 0.002; Hytac, 0.007 +/- 0.023; Elan, 0.054 +/- 0.013; Compoglass F, 0.135 +/- 0.006; Dyract AP, 0.135 +/- 0.023; Dyract, 0.185 +/- 0.032. Maximum depth of the wear facets (microm) was as follows: F2000, 112.2 +/- 10.2; Hytac, 132.8 +/- 9.3; Elan, 144.3 +/- 23. 1; Compoglass F, 168.3 +/- 13.0; Dyract AP, 194.0 +/- 19.7; Dyract, 220.6 +/- 15.8. There was not a difference (P > 0.05) in volumetric loss between F2000 and Hytac or between Hytac and Elan. The volume loss and maximum depth of the wear facets of F2000, Hytac and Elan was significantly less (P< 0.05) than Compoglass F, Dyract AP and Dyract The results of this study indicate that there are significant differences in the in vitro wear rates of compomer materials.