Abstract
ObjectivesTo compare gloss retention of four different resin composites with their corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks.Materials and methodsFour direct resin composites (Filtek Supreme XTE A2 Body (3M, USA), Tetric EvoCeram A2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), GrandioSO x‐tra A2 (VOCO, Germany), G‐aenial Universal A2 (GC, Japan)), and their corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks were tested. A total of 288 samples were prepared and three different tests were performed: brushing, exposition to acidic fluoride gel and exposition to alcoholic solution. Gloss values were obtained by means of a glossmeter at T0 before aging and T60 after 1 h of aging.ResultsMean gloss values ranged from 0.9 after brushing tests to 79.0 after the alcohol test witnessing a high gloss variability depending on the materials and the aging test. Statistical analysis by means of two‐way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Fisher's LSD post‐hoc test revealed significant differences between materials, storage media, and their interactions.ConclusionGloss retention seems to be dependent on the composite type (direct or CAD/CAM block) and composite brand and varies in respect to the type of aging. CAD/CAM materials showed a higher resistance toward alcohol exposure.
Highlights
Besides being the material of choice for direct restorations (Ardu & Krejci, 2006; Dietschi et al, 2012) composite resins in the form of prefabricated blocks are rapidly invading indirect CAD/CAM workflows
Gloss retention seems to be dependent on the composite type and composite brand and varies in respect to the type of aging
CAD/CAM materials showed a higher resistance toward alcohol exposure
Summary
Besides being the material of choice for direct restorations (Ardu & Krejci, 2006; Dietschi et al, 2012) composite resins in the form of prefabricated blocks are rapidly invading indirect CAD/CAM workflows. Most manufacturers have launched the equivalent of their direct resin composites in the form of CAD/CAM blocks due to the multiple advantages of this type of materials, such as ease of repair, perfect compatibility with adhesive techniques, higher resilience compared to brittle ceramics, relatively lower cost, and sufficient mechanical properties for single-tooth restorations (Ardu et al, 2011; Dietschi et al, 2019; Jassé et al, 2013). Gloss retention is an important factor as it allows for a better esthetic appearance of composite restorations, especially in anterior area. Exposure of resin composites in general, to acids, alcohol as well as brushing habits is known to alter their appearance on the long term, but no data exists on the comparison between the gloss retention of recently launched CAD/CAM composites and their corresponding traditional direct resin composites
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
