Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials

Survival analysis of composite Dahl restorations provided to manage localised anterior tooth wear (ten year follow-up)

“…Nevertheless, several studies have shown the marked abrasive nature of porcelain compared to other restorative materials such as gold alloy and composite resin. 22,23 In contrast to porcelain, Willems et al 24 have demonstrated modern composite resin restorations to have similar wear rates to human enamel, supporting its use in the management of tooth wear.…”

Influence of laboratory light sources on the wear characteristics of indirect composites

“…This trend can be attributed to improvements in handling characteristics as well as in the mechanical properties [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] of composite materials, especially in terms of abrasion or wear resistance [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] . Similarly, indirect composites have also demonstrated improved characteristics -through clinical evaluations-when used as prosthetic veneering agents [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] .…”

“…Unlike casting alloys and ceramic materials, the post-polymerization properties of indirect composites vary considerably depending on the conditions under which the matrix monomers are polymerized -namely, type of laboratory polymerization unit, light intensity, distance between light source and material surface, exposure duration, and post-cure heat treatment [17][18][19][20]28,29) . Although the wear of indirect composites has been extensively evaluated [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] , information on the wear characteristics of indirect composites in relation to laboratory polymerization conditions remains scarce.…”

Esthetic Restorative Materials and Opposing Enamel Wear

“…Human tooth cusps against flat restorative material specimens have been previously used in many in vitro investigations in order to study the wear of enamel opposing restorative materials. 2,4,7,[18][19][20][21] The rate of cycling used was based on a review by Bates and others, 15 where 80 cycles per minute was reported to approximate the natural chewing rate. 15 Measurement of the total height loss of both material and enamel has clinical relevance, since it might correlate with a diminishing of occlusal vertical dimension and its consequences.…”

“…These materials are esthetic, non-cytotoxic 6 and cause less opposing enamel wear than ceramics. 7 However, there is concern about their durability due to the wear process resulting from masticatory function. To date, few studies have been published on the wear of laboratory processed composite restorations resulting from multiple cycle loading against enamel.…”