World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Toothbrush Abrasion of Resin Composites with Different Filler Concepts

Hideaki Kyoizumi, Masafumi Kanehira, Werner J Finger, Yasuyuki Araki, Toshimitsu Suzuki

Citation Information : Kyoizumi H, Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Araki Y, Suzuki T. Toothbrush Abrasion of Resin Composites with Different Filler Concepts. World J Dent 2012; 3 (2):184-193.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1154

Published Online: 01-06-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).



To investigate the effect of tooth brushing wear with and without calcium carbonate slurry on four commercial resin composites based on different filler concepts.

Materials and methods

One nanofiller composite MI FIL (MFI, GC), one conventional hybrid type Venus (VEN) and two nanohybrid composites Venus Diamond (VED) and Venus Pearl (VEP) all from Heraeus Kulzer were examined. Forty beam-shaped specimens (12 × 3 × 3 mm) from each product were prepared and subdivided in two equal groups for pregrinding on SiC paper #600 and #4000 respectively. Ten specimens of each pre-ground group were subjected to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry, and 10 to toothbrushing with water only. The samples were submitted to five subsequent runs of 10,000 brushing strokes. Depth of wear and surface roughness (Ra) were measured with a profilometer after each 10 k strokes. Specimens after 50 k strokes were assessed by SEM. Additionally, the KHN (0.25 N/15 s) and the degree of conversion (DC) were determined. Data analysis was done by linear regression and ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05).


Toothbrushing with abrasive slurry produced significantly different wear depths: VEN > MIF > VEP > VED. Linear relationships between depth of wear and number of cycles (r2 ≥ 0.94) were established for each material. Pregrinding with SiC #4000 resulted in less wear than pregrinding with #600. Ra figures were much higher for VED than for the other materials tested. MIF and VEN were uniformly abraded, whereas the largest glass fillers in VED protruded from the surroundings and the prepolymer particles in VEP were deeper abraded than the bulk of the material. Toothbrushing with water only revealed not measurable wear. Roughness Ra was practically unchanged when compared with the preground samples before challenging with toothbrushes. Ranking by KHN was: MIF < VEN, VEP < VED, by DC: MIF < VEN < VEP < VED.


Filler concepts and monomer compositions affect wear and roughness of resin composites when tooth brushed with abrasive slurry. Toothbrushing without abrasive medium produced neither wear nor roughness. Careful polishing of resin composite restorations is an important determinant of wear and surface roughness.

How to cite this article

Suzuki T, Kyoizumi H, Araki Y, Finger WJ, Kanehira M. Toothbrush Abrasion of Resin Composites with Different Filler Concepts. World J Dent 2012;3(2):184-193.

PDF Share
  1. Dental materials guidance on testing of wear: Part 1: Wear by tooth brushing. Technical Report 2007;14569:1
  2. Abrasion of restorative materials by toothpaste. J Oral Rehabil 1976;3:121-38.
  3. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pH-cycling simulations. Oper Dent 2001;26: 576-84.
  4. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005;30:617-26.
  5. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of two restorative composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:172-82.
  6. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:265-75.
  7. Control of brushing variables for the in vitro assessment of toothpaste abrasivity using a novel laboratory model. J Dent 2008;36: 117-24.
  8. Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry. Dent Mater J 2009;28:708-16.
  9. In vitro wear of new indirect resin composites. Oper Dent 2009;34:423-28.
  10. Appearance of finished and unfinished composite surfaces after toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1983;41:377-83.
  11. Nanohybrid resin composites: Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins. Oper Dent 2009;34:551-57.
  12. The measurement of toothbrush wear. J Dent Res 1989;68:1781-85.
  13. Studies in vitro of abrasion by different manual toothbrush heads and a standard toothpaste. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:99-103.
  14. Abrasion of eroded dentin caused by toothpaste slurries of different abrasivity and toothbrushes of different filament diameter. J Dent 2009;37:480-84.
  15. The role of the toothbrush in the abrasion process. Int J Dent Hygiene 2011;9:284-90.
  16. Dentifrice abrasivity. The use of laser light and supplemental techniques for characterizing toothpastes containing different abrasives. An in vitro study. Swed Dent J 1984;8:57-66.
  17. Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resistance. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:264-68.
  18. Analysis of composite type and different sources of polymerization light on in vitro toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion resistance. J Dent 2000;28: 355-59.
  19. Abrasion resistance of composites polymerized by lightemitting diodes (LED) and halogen light-curing units. Braz Dent J 2006;17:29-33.
  20. Surface properties of an indirect composite polymerized with five laboratory light polymerization systems. J Oral Sci 2009;51:215-21.
  21. Interaction between toothbrushes and toothpaste abrasive particles in simulated tooth cleaning. Wear 2004;257:368-76.
  22. Relationship between the plaque removal efficacy of a manual toothbrush and brushing force. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:413-16.
  23. A new method for in vitro evaluation of the interproximal penetration of manual toothbrushes. J Clin Dent 1994;5:27-33.
  24. Effects of occlusal and brushing forces on wear of composite resins. Dent Mater J 2006;25: 183-94.
  25. Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:816-22.
  26. Influence of storage regime prior to abrasion on surface topography of restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2003;65:227-32.
  27. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:303-14.
  28. Effects of occlusal and brushing cycles on wear of composite resins in combined wear test. Dent Mater J 2008;27:243-50.
  29. Relevance of different polymerisation methods on light-curing composites conversion degree. J Dent Res 2009;88(Sp Iss A):(Abstr 301).
  30. Degree of conversion and postgel shrinkage of low shrinkage composites. J Dent Res 2010;89 (Sp Iss B): (Abstr 319).
  31. Contraction stress of low-shrinkage composite materials assessed with different testing systems. Dent Mater 2010;26:947-53.
  32. The effect of various dentifrices on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2010;38s:e123-28.
  33. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Imp Res 1996;7:201-11.
  34. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.