Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An-in vitro study

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative. Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8 mm width) in each group (n=10) were fabricated. GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One Bulk fill restorative and GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. By placing the material in a mold in a single increment then curing. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear testing. The samples weighted before and after the brushing to measure the weight loss. For the microhardness test, thirty cylindrical specimens (6 mm× 8 mm) (n= 10) were fabricated to assess the microhardness, top and bottom surfaces were tested using Vicker Hardness test. The results were analyized with a one-way ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparisons were examined in Tukey test. Results: Abrasive Resistance results, Surefil one (9.52gr) and Beautifil bulk (4.16gr) showed an increase in weight after brushing, while Filtek one bulkfill (-0.85gr) showed a decrease in weight.Microhardness test results, Beautifil bulk showed the highest number of VH (74.83) followed by Surefil one (70.61) and Filtek one bulkfill (62.95). Conclusion: Beautifil bulk was more resistant to abrasion in comparison to Surefil one selfadhesive and One bulk fill. The great weight loss was observed in One bulk fill. Great weight gain was observed in Surefil one self-adhesive. Beautifil bulk showed the highest VH number compare to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. Filtek one bulk fill showed low resistance and low hardness number.