Table 1.
In vitro studies comparing physical properties of nanocomposite and other resin-based composite restoratives, 2004 – present
| Author | Variables tested | Materials tested | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oxman et al48 | Polish gloss, three-body wear depth (AFM SEM micrographs) and esthetics of Ketac Nano, an NHRMGI, with two RMGIs and a nanohybrid composite | Ketac Nano (NHRMGI) Fuji II LC (RMGI) Fuji Filling LC (RMGI) Tetric Evo Ceram (nanohybrid) |
NHRMGI showed significantly higher gloss compared to other RMGIs, closer to that of a hybrid composite and had a significantly lower wear rate compared with other RMGIs (ANOVA with Tukey’s comparison; P < 0.05). |
| Yesil et al84 | Three-body wear of restorations using oral wear simulator: relative abrasive wear, attrition wear, and roughness; attrition of opposing cusps | Filtek™ Supreme (nanofill) Premise (nanohybrid) Point 4 (microhybrid) Heliomolar RO (microfill) |
RBC type did not significantly affect the amount of measured attrition (P = 0.15) but did significantly affect abrasive wear (P = 0.02, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple range post hoc test); no significant difference in the average size of the RBC-generated opposing enamel wear facet. Heliomolar RO produced a significantly rougher surface within the wear track than Premise or Point 4 but did not differ significantly from Filtek™ Supreme. Use of nanofillers in two RBCs tested did not significantly improve wear resistance or opposing cusp wear compared with traditional materials. |
| Senawongse and Pongprueksa61 | Surface roughness (assessed by contact stylus profilometer and SEM) of unpolished RBC versus different polishing methods | Filtek™ Supreme XT Filtek™ Z350 (universal nanofill) Estelite® Sigma (submicron fill; 100–300 nm particles) Premise™ (nanohybrid) Tetric EvoCeram (nanohybrid) Filtek™ Z250; Tetric Ceram; Clearfil™ AP-X (microhybrids) CeramX™ (ormocer®; 2–3-nm particles) |
After brushing, surfaces of all materials except Filtek™ Z350 and Filtek™ Supreme XT (dentin) were rougher than unpolished surfaces and those polished with abrasive disks or silicone devices. Nanofills with nanoclusters had the smoothest surfaces after polishing and brushing. |
| Beun et al47 | Elastic moduli, flexural strength, Vickers microhardness, degree of conversion and depth of cure during polymerization with LED and halogen lamps, filler-particle weight and morphology (by SEM) | Filtek™ Supreme Grandio® and Grandio® Flow (nanohybrids) Point-4, Tetric Ceram, Venus, Z 100 (universal hybrids) Filtek™ A110, Durafill® vs (microfills) |
Nanofilled RBCs showed mechanical properties at least as good as those of universal hybrids. Nanofills had higher elastic moduli than those of universal and microfilled composites, except Z-100. Microfills had the poorest mechanical properties. Flexural strength was not a discriminating factor. Polymerization degrees obtained with halogen lamp were higher than with LED lamp. |
| Korkmaz et al85 | Surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites and microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems (240 samples) | Filtek™ Supreme XT; Aelite Aesthetic Enamel (nanofills) Grandio® (nanohybrid) CeramX™ Tetric EvoCeram Filtek™ Z250 |
Mylar strips produced smoothest surfaces in all composite groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences between polishing systems were observed in the Filtek™ Supreme XT, CeramX™, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Grandio® groups for surface roughness (P > 0.05; 1-way ANOVA). In the Tetric EvoCeram group, Sof-Lex discs produced the greatest roughness. No statistically significant differences were observed between polishing systems (P > 0.05); Mylar-strip-produced surfaces showed statistically significantly lower microhardness values than polished surfaces (P < 0.05). Nanocomposites may be successfully polished using one-step polishing systems. |
| Koh et al86 | Surface roughness after polishing with four different polishing systems | Gradia® Direct (microhybrid) Filtek™ Supreme |
There was no significant difference in roughness between RBCs for individual polishing systems (P = 0.3991). Filtek™ Supreme was smoother than Gradia® after baseline roughening. Sof-Lex™ provided the smoothest final surface with either composite. Astropol produced a rough surface with Gradia® specimens. |
| Jung et al60 | Average roughness (RA) and profile-length ratio (LR) after finishing of four nanoparticles and one hybrid RBCs with different rotary-instrument protocols, assessed by SEM and optical laser stylus profilometry (60 samples) | Premise Tetric EvoCeram Filtek™ Supreme CeramX™ Duo Herculite XRV ™ (hybrid) |
The materials and finishing methods had a significant effect on surface roughness (P < 0.001 for Ra and LR; two-way and one-way ANOVA and Scheffe post-hoc tests). Significant interactions occurred between the RBCs and the finishing methods (P < 0.001 for Ra and LR). Three of the nanocomposites were significantly smoother than Herculite XRV™ with all finishing methods. CeramX™ Duo and Herculite XRV™ had similar Ra and LR. SEM showed that use of a 30 μm diamond caused detrimental surface alteration on all RBC types tested. |
| Jung et al59 | Average roughness of four nanoparticles and one hybrid RBCs after finishing and polishing with three different techniques (one-step and multi-step); assessed by SEM and optical laser stylus profilometry (60 samples) | Premise Tetric EvoCeram Filtek™ Supreme CeramX™ Duo Herculite XRV ™ |
Surface roughness after polishing was significantly influenced by three factors: composite material (P < 0.001; three-way and two-way ANOVA and Scheffe post-hoc tests), finishing protocol (P < 0.001) and polishing method (P < 0.001). Strong interactions were seen between finishing and polishing methods (P < 0.001). Two of the nanocomposites were significantly smoother (P ≤ 0.001); the other two were similar in surface quality to a hybrid. Astropol produced the lowest average roughness on all composites. |
| Baseren53 | Effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid RBCs and ormocer-based restoratives | Filtek™ Supreme Grandio® Admira (ormocer®) |
Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all materials. The ormocer (Admira) had the least variability in initial surface roughness. |
| Yap et al46 | Surface finish, eight different types of aesthetic restoratives | Fuji II LC (FL; RMGI) Fuji IX GP Fast (FN; highly viscous glass ionomer cement) F2000 (FT; compomer) Z100 (ZO; minifill) A110 (AO; microfill) Admira (AM) Filtek™ Supreme Translucent (FST; nanomer) Filtek™ Supreme (FS; nanocluster) |
Ra values observed for finished/polished AM and FST were significantly lower (ANOVA/Scheffe’s test; significance level of 0.05) than for AO and FS. Surface finishes of glass ionomers and compomer were significantly poorer than composites. Ormocer®- and nanomer-based composites were significantly smoother than those based on microfillers and nanoclusters. |
Abbreviations: AFM, atomic-force microscopy; NHRMGI, nano-hybrid resin modified glass ionomer; RBC, resin-based composite; RMGI, resin-modified glass ionomers; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; LED, light-emitting diode.