PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of dental materials on primary enamel wear. METHODS: Four composites (Filtek Z250, Heliomolar, Point 4, SureFil), two compomers (Dyract AP, F2000) and a resin-modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer) were placed into box-shaped preparations in buccal surfaces of primary molars and stored for 24 hours in water at 37 degrees C. The specimens (n = 6) were subjected to abrasive three-body wear against a primary enamel cusp. Material wear, enamel wear (adjacent to the material), and wear on enamel cusps were estimated by profilometry and video-analysis software. Results were compared with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Vitremer showed the highest wear (P < 0.05), followed by Dyract AP and F2000, which were not statistically different (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between Filtek Z250 and Dyract AP (P > 0.05). Filtek Z250, Heliomolar, Point 4 and SureFil, showed the lowest wear values and there was no difference among them (P > 0.05). The highest wear values on the enamel adjacent to the material were found with Dyract AP (P < 0.05) and the lowest next to Point 4 and SureFil (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the wear of the enamel next to Vitremer, F2000, Heliomolar and Filtek Z250 (P > 0.05). Vitremer and F2000 caused the highest wear on enamel cusps (P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between them; SureFil caused the lowest wear (P < 0.05) on the opposing enamel. There was a correlation (r = 0.85) between wear of materials and wear on the enamel cusps, but not (r = 0.53) for the wear on enamel besides the restoration and wear on enamel cusps. SEM micrographs showed different surface characteristics of the materials after the wear test.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of dental materials on primary enamel wear. METHODS: Four composites (Filtek Z250, Heliomolar, Point 4, SureFil), two compomers (Dyract AP, F2000) and a resin-modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer) were placed into box-shaped preparations in buccal surfaces of primary molars and stored for 24 hours in water at 37 degrees C. The specimens (n = 6) were subjected to abrasive three-body wear against a primary enamel cusp. Material wear, enamel wear (adjacent to the material), and wear on enamel cusps were estimated by profilometry and video-analysis software. Results were compared with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Vitremer showed the highest wear (P < 0.05), followed by Dyract AP and F2000, which were not statistically different (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between Filtek Z250 and Dyract AP (P > 0.05). Filtek Z250, Heliomolar, Point 4 and SureFil, showed the lowest wear values and there was no difference among them (P > 0.05). The highest wear values on the enamel adjacent to the material were found with Dyract AP (P < 0.05) and the lowest next to Point 4 and SureFil (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the wear of the enamel next to Vitremer, F2000, Heliomolar and Filtek Z250 (P > 0.05). Vitremer and F2000 caused the highest wear on enamel cusps (P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between them; SureFil caused the lowest wear (P < 0.05) on the opposing enamel. There was a correlation (r = 0.85) between wear of materials and wear on the enamel cusps, but not (r = 0.53) for the wear on enamel besides the restoration and wear on enamel cusps. SEM micrographs showed different surface characteristics of the materials after the wear test.