The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2017 ) > List of Articles


Wear Resistance of Bulk-fill Composite Resin Restorative Materials Polymerized under different Curing Intensities

Fahad Alkhudhairy

Citation Information : Alkhudhairy F. Wear Resistance of Bulk-fill Composite Resin Restorative Materials Polymerized under different Curing Intensities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (1):39-43.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1985

Published Online: 01-05-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to assess the wear resistance of four bulk-fill composite resin restorative materials cured using high- and low-intensity lights.

Materials and methods

Twenty-four samples were prepared from each composite resin material (Tetric N-Ceram, SonicFill, Smart Dentin Replacement, Filtek Bulk-Fill) resulting in a total of 96 samples; they were placed into a mold in a single increment. All of the 96 samples were cured using the Bluephase N light curing unit for 20 seconds. Half of the total specimens (n = 48) were light cured using high-intensity output (1,200 mW/cm2), while the remaining half (n = 48) were light cured using low-intensity output (650 mW/cm2). Wear was analyzed by a three-dimensional (3D) noncontact optical profilometer (Contour GT-I, Bruker, Germany). Mean and standard deviation (SD) of surface loss (depth) after 120,000 cycles for each test material was calculated and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a significance level at p < 0.05.


The least mean surface loss was observed for SonicFill (186.52 µm) cured using low-intensity light. No significant difference in the mean surface loss was observed when comparing the four tested materials with each other without taking the curing light intensity into consideration (p = 0.352). A significant difference in the mean surface loss was observed between SonicFill cured using high-intensity light compared with that cured using low-intensity light (p < 0.001).


A higher curing light intensity (1,200 mW/cm2) had no positive influence on the wear resistance of the four bulk-fill composite resin restorative materials tested compared with lower curing light intensity (650 mW/cm2). Furthermore, SonicFill cured using low-intensity light was the most wearresistant material tested, whereas Tetric N-Ceram cured using high-intensity light was the least wear resistant.

Clinical significance

The wear resistance was better with the newly introduced bulk-fill composite resins under low-intensity light curing.

How to cite this article

Alkhudhairy F. Wear Resistance of Bulk-fill Composite Resin Restorative Materials Polymerized under different Curing Intensities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(1):39-43.

PDF Share
  1. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001 Spring;3(1):45-64.
  2. Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods – a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003 May;65(2):280-285.
  3. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 1989 Dec;68(12):1752-1754.
  4. Wear resistance of composites: a solved problem? Gen Dent 1998 May-Jun;46(3):256-263, quiz 264-255.
  5. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials 2005 Aug;26(24):4932-4937.
  6. Effects of resin formulation and nanofiller surface treatment on in vitro wear of experimental hybrid resin composite. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006 Apr;77(1):120-125.
  7. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997 Aug;76(8):1508-1516.
  8. Sliding wear behavior of epoxy containing nano-Al2O3 particles with different pretreatments. Wear 2004 Jun;256(11-12):1072-1081.
  9. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016 Feb;115(2):199-202.
  10. In vivo and in vitro wear of potential posterior composites. J Dent Res 1984 Jun;63(6):914-920.
  11. The clinical evaluation of heat-treated composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 1990 Feb;120(2):177-181.
  12. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Oct;82(4):391-397.
  13. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a new universal composite resin. J Esthet Dent 1994;6(4):177-183.
  14. Wear resistance of posterior condensable composite resins. J Dent Res 1999;78:447.
  15. In vitro wear of condensable resin composite restoratives. J Dent Res 1999;78(447).
  16. Wear behavior of flowable and condensable composite resins. J Dent Res 1999;78:447-452.
  17. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of condensable composites. Dent Mater 1999;78:156.
  18. Effect of power density of curing unit, exposure duration, and light guide distance on composite depth of cure. Clin Oral Investig 2005 Jun;9(2):71-76.
  19. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013 Mar;29(3):269-277.
  20. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth-illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 2011 Oct;142(10):1176-1182.
  21. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013 Jan;17(1):227-235.
  22. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):618-625.
  23. Influence of various irradiation processes on the mechanical properties and polymerisation kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent 2013 Aug;41(8):695-702.
  24. An in vitro investigation of wear resistance and hardness of composite resins. Int J Clin Exp Med 2013 Jun;6(6):423-430.
  25. Development of an artificial oral environment for the testing of dental restoratives: bi-axial force and movement control. J Dent Res 1983 Jan;62(1):32-36.
  26. Effect of abrasion medium on wear of stress-bearing composites and amalgam in vitro. J Dent Res 1986 May;65(5):654-658.
  27. Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater 1996 Jul;12(4):218-226.
  28. An in vitro device for predicting clinical wear. Quintessence Int 1989 Oct;20(10):755-761.
  29. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater 2006 Aug;22(8):702-711.
  30. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 2006 Aug;22(8):712-734.
  31. Argon ion laser curing depth effect on a composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2011 Jul;26(4):421-425.
  32. Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2003 Sep-Oct;28(5):628-634.
  33. Enhancement of physical properties of resin restorative materials by laser polymerization. Lasers Surg Med 1989;9(6):623-627.
  34. Laser curing of dental materials. Dent Clin North Am 2000 Oct;44(4):923-930.
  35. Conversion in different depths of ultraviolet and visible light activated composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40(3):179-192.
  36. Curing-light attenuation in filled-resin restorative materials. Dent Mater 2006 Sep;22(9):804-817.
  37. Dental composite depth of cure with halogen and blue light emitting diode technology. Br Dent J 1999 Apr;186(8):388-391.
  38. Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity influence composite curing depth. J Dent Res 2008 Jan;87(1):84-88.
  39. Influence of halogen irradiance on short- and long-term wear resistance of resin-based composite materials. Dent Mater 2009 Feb;25(2):214-220.
  40. Energy dependent polymerization of resin-based composite. Dent Mater 2002 Sep;18(6):463-469.
  41. Is the wear of dental composites still a clinical concern? Is there still a need for in vitro wear simulating devices? Dent Mater 2006 Aug;22(8):689-692.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.