Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the surface properties (microhardness and wear resistance) of various composites and compomer materials. In addition, the methodologies used for assessing wear resistance were compared.
Materials and methods: This study was conducted using restorative material (Filtek Z250, Filtek Z350, QuiXfil, SureFil SDR, and Dyract XP) to assess wear resistance. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear testing. Before and after wear resistance, structural, surface, and physical properties were assessed using various techniques.
Results: Structural changes and mass loss were observed after treatment, whereas no significant difference in terms of microhardness was observed. The correlation between atomic force microscopy (AFM) and profilometer and between wear resistance and filler volume was highly significant. The correlation between wear resistance and microhardness were insignificant.
Conclusions: The AFM presented higher precision compared to optical profilometers at a nanoscale level, but both methods can be used in tandem for a more detailed and precise roughness analysis.
Keywords: Abrasion; Fourier transform infrared; atomic force microscopy; dental materials; surface roughness.