Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(03): 663-672
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750769
Original Article

Surface Properties and Wear Resistance of Injectable and Computer-Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing–Milled Resin Composite Thin Occlusal Veneers

Nesrine A. Elsahn
1   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
2   Center of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
3   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Hatem M. El-Damanhoury 
4   Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
,
Zainab Shirazi
2   Center of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
,
Abdul Rahman M. Saleh 
1   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
2   Center of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
› Author Affiliations Funding This investigation was funded by Ajman University, research grant number 2020-IRG-DEN-07, which is gratefully acknowledged.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study was conducted to investigate the microhardness, surface roughness (Ra), and wear behavior of thin occlusal veneers (TOV) fabricated from different injectable composite materials and compare them to a Computer-Aided Design (CAD)/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) resin-based material.

Materials and Methods A 1-mm occusal veneer preparation was done in a mandibular right second molar typodont tooth. The prepared model was duplicated to fabricate 32 replicas and divided into four groups (n = 8). Standard TOV were fabricated either indirectly from Cerasmart blocks, Cerasmart, GC (CS), or directly from Beautifil Injectable X, Shofu (BF), G-ænial Universal injectable, GC (GU), or SonicFill 2, Kerr (SF) using the injection molding technique. All the specimens were subjected to both thermomechanical cyclic loading (TMC) in a chewing simulator. Wear measurement was conducted by three-dimensional (3D) scanning of the veneered models before and after TMC, and the difference in the volume of the sample was recorded as the volumetric material loss due to wear. Ra before and after TMC and Vickers microhardness (VHN) of the tested materials were measured using standardized samples (n = 8). Representative samples from each group were investigated under a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope.

Statistical Analysis One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to detect the effect of material on VHN and wear. Two-way ANOVA was utilized to examine the impact of material and TMC on Ra. Multiple comparisons between the groups were conducted using Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). The Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between hardness and wear and between roughness and wear (α = 0.05).

Results CS exhibited the highest mean VHN (p ≤ 0.001), followed by GU and SF which were statistically similar (p = 0.883) but significantly higher than BF (p < 0.001). After TMC, GU revealed the lowest Ra and volumetric wear (VW), followed by CS, BF, and SF (p < 0.5). A highly significant correlation existed between Ra and VW (p = 0.001, R 2 = 0.9803).

Conclusion The effect of TMC on the surface properties and wear resistance of the investigated TOV is material-dependent. GU injectable TOV are less influenced by TMC than CS milled TOV. In contrast, BF and SF demonstrated significant VW and Ra which might limit their clinical use as TOV.

Keywords

CAD/CAM - hardness - injection molding - occlusal veneers - resin-based composite - roughness - wear


Publication History

Article published online:
11 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Milosevic A, Burnside G. The survival of direct composite restorations in the management of severe tooth wear including attrition and erosion: a prospective 8-year study. J Dent 2016; 44: 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Smith BG, Knight JK. A comparison of patterns of tooth wear with aetiological factors. Br Dent J 1984; 157 (01) 16-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Muts EJ, van Pelt H, Edelhoff D, Krejci I, Cune M. Tooth wear: a systematic review of treatment options. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (04) 752-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Azouzi I, Kalghoum I, Hadyaoui D, Harzallah B, Cherif M. Principles and guidelines for managing tooth wear: a review. Int Med Care 2018; 2 (01) 1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Fradeani M, Barducci G, Bacherini L, Brennan M. Esthetic rehabilitation of a worn dentition with a minimally invasive prosthetic procedure (MIPP). Int J Esthet Dent 2016; 11 (01) 16-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Meyers IA. Minimum intervention dentistry and the management of tooth wear in general practice. Aust Dent J 2013; 58 (01, Suppl 01) 60-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2013. :66, 284, 295, 453, 459–61
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, Baratieri LN. In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104 (03) 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (05) 1141-1150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Galiatsatos A, Galiatsatos P, Bergou D. Clinical longevity of indirect composite resin inlays and onlays: an up to 9-year prospective study. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 202-208
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Al-Akhali M, Kern M, Elsayed A, Samran A, Chaar MS. Influence of thermomechanical fatigue on the fracture strength of CAD-CAM-fabricated occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (04) 644-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schmidlin PR, Filli T, Imfeld C, Tepper S, Attin T. Three-year evaluation of posterior vertical bite reconstruction using direct resin composite–a case series. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (01) 102-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mehta SB, Banerji S, Millar BJ, Suarez-Feito JM. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 4. An overview of the restorative techniques and dental materials commonly applied for the management of tooth wear. Br Dent J 2012; 212 (04) 169-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mehta SB, Francis S, Banerji S, Banerji SA. A guided, conservative approach for the management of localized mandibular anterior tooth wear. Dent Update 2016; 43 (02) 106-108 , 110–112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chockattu SJ, Deepak BS, Sood A, Niranjan NT, Jayasheel A, Goud MK. Management of dental erosion induced by gastro-esophageal reflux disorder with direct composite veneering aided by a flexible splint matrix. Restor Dent Endod 2018; 43 (01) e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ammannato R, Rondoni D, Ferraris F. Update on the ‘index technique’ in worn dentition: a no-prep restorative approach with a digital workflow. Int J Esthet Dent 2018; 13 (04) 516-537
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Geštakovski D. The injectable composite resin technique: minimally invasive reconstruction of esthetics and function. Clinical case report with 2-year follow-up. Quintessence Int 2019; 50 (09) 712-719
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Szesz A, Parreiras S, Martini E, Reis A, Loguercio A. Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2017; 65: 11-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shaalan OO, Abou-Auf E, El Zoghby AF. Clinical evaluation of flowable resin composite versus conventional resin composite in carious and noncarious lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20 (06) 380-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ammannato R, Ferraris F, Marchesi G. The “index technique” in worn dentition: a new and conservative approach. Int J Esthet Dent 2015; 10 (01) 68-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Imai A, Takamizawa T, Sugimura R. et al. Interrelation among the handling, mechanical, and wear properties of the newly developed flowable resin composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 89: 72-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Transform the way you work. Start injecting with our strongest direct restorative ever: G-ænial Universal Injectable. Accessed May 6, 2022 at: https://www.gcamerica.com/collateral/GCA_G-aenial_Universal_Injectable_Bro.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Beautifil Injectable X: the one true bioactive injectable restorative. Accessed May 6, 2022 at: https://www.shofu.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/BInjectableX-ref-1.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Aladağ A, Oğuz D, Çömlekoğlu ME, Akan E. In vivo wear determination of novel CAD/CAM ceramic crowns by using 3D alignment. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11 (02) 120-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Anusavice KJ. Mechanical properties of dental materials. In: Anusavice KJ. ed. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials, 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2007: 96-97
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (08) 1991-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Klapdohr S, Moszner N. New inorganic components for dental filling composites. Monatshefte für Chemie/Chemical Monthly 2005; 136 (01) 21-45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Elzoheiry A, Hafez A, Amr H. Microhardness testing of resin cement versus sonic bulk fill resin composite material for cementation of CAD/CAM composite block with different thickness. Egypt Dent J 2019; 65 (01) 69-78
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Kooi TJ, Tan QZ, Yap AU, Guo W, Tay KJ, Soh MS. Effects of food-simulating liquids on surface properties of giomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2012; 37 (06) 665-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Niyomsujarit N, Chaichalothorn M. Effects of cyclic acid challenge on the surface roughness of various flowable resin composites. Mo Dent J 2021; 41 (03) 187-196
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Trottmann A, Schmutz F, Roos M, Hämmerle C. Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109 (05) 325-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Oh WS, Delong R, Anusavice KJ. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87 (04) 451-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hengtrakool C, Kukiattrakoon B, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of naturally acidic agents on microhardness and surface micromorphology of restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2011; 5 (01) 89-100
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Matzinger M, Hahnel S, Preis V, Rosentritt M. Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (02) 725-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N. Post-irradiation hardness development, chemical softening, and thermal stability of bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites. J Dent 2015; 43 (02) 209-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Erickson RL, Tsujimoto A, Latta M, Miyazaki M. Localized and generalized simulated wear of resin composites. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (03) 322-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mu HL, Tian FC, Wang XY, Gao XJ. Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal composite in vivo. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2020; 53 (01) 120-125 DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.01.018.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sunico MC, Shinkai K, Katoh Y. Two-year clinical performance of occlusal and cervical giomer restorations. Oper Dent 2005; 30 (03) 282-289
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 2003; 24 (04) 655-665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schroeder G, Rösch P, Kunzelmann KH. Influence of the preparation design on the survival probability of occlusal veneers. Dent Mater 2022; 38 (04) 646-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar