The Surface Roughness of Enamel-to-Enamel Contact Areas Compared with the Intrinsic Roughness of Dental Resin Composites G. WILLEMS, P. LAMBRECHTS, M. BRAEM', M. VUYLSTEKE-WAUTERS2, and G. VANHERLE Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, U.Z. St. Rafael, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; 'Division of Dental Morphology and Oral Physiology, Antwerp State University Center, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium; and 2Computing Center of the Catholic University Leuven, de Croylaan 524, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
The purpose of this study was to determine the surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas in order to provide a standard for comparison with surface characteristics of commercially available composite restorative materials. In addition, the inherent surface roughness of resin composites was evaluated profilometrically after a toothbrush abrasion procedure. A one-sided t-test analysis was performed to outline significant differences between the surface roughness value of enamel facets and that of the respective composite samples. A surface roughness of 0.64 + 0.25 pum (mean + S.D.) was found for the enamel-to-enamel contact areas. J Dent Res 70(9):1299-1305, September, 1991
occlusal contact areas. This smoothness will benefit the composite wear as well as the antagonistic enamel wear. To meet smoothness requirements, the intrinsic surface roughness of resin composites must be equal to or less than the average roughness value of enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas (Lambrechts et al., 1988). The purpose of this present study was two-fold. First, the intrinsic surface roughness obtained after in vitro toothbrushing of commercially available resin composites with a dentifrice was examined profilometrically and with scanning electron microscopy. Second, the average surface-roughness value of in vivo enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas was determined quantitatively for use as a criterion for comparison with the surface roughness of composite restoratives.
Introduction. Acceptance standards for posterior composites are being sought by dental materials groups (ADA Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment, 1989). The most logical approach would be to choose human enamel as a general standard, since it is the biological material that is replaced after occlusal cavity preparation; the ideal restorative material should mimic the properties of the tissues it replaces. This is true for color match (Bausch, 1982), thermal expansion coefficient (Dickson, 1979; Craig, 1989), radiopacity (Hein et al., 1989), modulus of elasticity (Braem et al., 1987b), and compressive strength (Craig, 1989). The rate of wear of enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas due to attrition has recently been measured in vivo (Lambrechts et al., 1989), and the resulting quantitative data can serve as a physiological wear standard. The attrition of a restoration is of clinical importance only if it differs from the vertical enamel wear under physiological conditions. Some posterior composites presently show a wear rate comparable with that of enamel (Roulet, 1987). The dental practitioner must carefully evaluate the probable abrasive effects of using certain restorative materials like porcelain or resin composites to oppose existing tooth structure (Chapman and Nathanson, 1983; Lambrechts et al., 1987). The surface of the composite filling contains both resin matrix and filler particles. Therefore, if there is a mismatch between the filler hardness and surface roughness of the composite and that of enamel, there is a danger that the enamel will be worn down. During mastication, composite filler particles may scratch and abrade the antagonistic enamel. The vertical dimension will thus decrease if premolar and molar regions are treated with such a restorative material. Therefore, the surface texture and the particle size, shape, size distribution, and hardness play important roles in determining the biological strength of composite restorations. A smooth surface provides reduced frictional wear at the Received for publication June 25, 1990 Accepted for publication April 15, 1991
Materials and methods. Enamel study. -Long-term wear studies on composites and amalgams in the premolar and molar regions in vivo carried TABLE 1 SURFACE ROUGHNESS VALUES OF ENAMEL-TO-ENAMEL OCCLUSAL CONTACT AREAS Ra SD SD Rt Tooth Patient (Atm) (Am) (Pm) (Pm) 1 0.81 0.08 4.02 0.38 26 0.27 0.02 3.21 0.65 0.04 0.47 0.49 4.77 0.47 0.11 1.42 5.01 0.04 5.76 0.54 0.53 0.42 0.05 5.21 0.88 0.36 0.10 3.89 1.69 47 0.50 0.04 5.18 0.63 2 16 0.69 0.02 3.67 0.39 7.23 3.87 0.91 0.25 0.74 0.05 8.09 1.18 35 0.09 1.96 36 0.30 5.34 0.02 0.48 0.89 4.18 6.42 1.67 0.77 0.19 0.02 6.02 0.19 0.79 0.06 5.74 1.10 2 36 0.71 0.03 6.41 0.58 46 0.51 1.61 46 1.04 0.06 7.78 3 1.35 1.11 0.01 8.35 6.02 1.44 0.94 0.22 0.63 0.09 4.25 0.40 0.59 0.58 0.06 5.23 1.44 8.83 37 1.07 0.15 6 10.09 5.24 0.32 1.00 0.68 4.75 0.02 47 0.39 0.58 4.08 0.35 0.05 2.79 0.27 5.90 0.53 1.43 0.11 4.35 0.40 0.80 5.62 0.10 0.72 7 26 0.46 6.16 0.11 0.69 Ra = surface roughness. Rt = maximum peak-to-valley height.
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 9, 2015 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
1299
1300
WILLEMS et aLJJ Dent Res September 1991
TABLE 2 Ra- AND Rt-VALUES AFTER TOOTHBRUSH-DENTIFRICE ABRASION OF COMPOSITES SMOOTHER THAN ENAMEL, IN ORDER OF ROUGHNESS SD (tAm) Rt (Am) Product Name Ra (Im) SD (lm) Manufacturer Heliosit 0.07 0.01 0.62 0.31 Vivadent, Liechtenstein 0.08 0.01 0.77 0.20 Certain Johnson & Johnson, USA 0.09 0.01 0.86 Heliomolar* 0.26 Vivadent
Silux Brilliant Dentin Durafill Herculite XR* Herculite condensable Helioprogress Heliomolar Radiopaque Silux Plus Bayer D 653/5 SR Isosit Answer
0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18
Durafill VS Pekalux 0.19 Brilliant Lux 0.19 Prisma-Microfine 0.20 Brilliant DI 0.21 Adaptic LCM 0.21 Lumifor 0.21 Command Ultrafine 0.22 Bayer D 632/6 0.22 Amalux* 0.22 Prisma-Microfine Compules 0.25 Amalux Sintergel NC 0.26 EOS 0.26 Visio-Dispers 0.27 Valux 0.29 Prisma APH Sinterlux 0.33 0.34 Biogloss 0.39 Ful-fil computes Amalux 2 0.44 0.46 Gem-Lite I 0.48 Adaptic II* 0.48 P-50 Ful-Fil 0.50 Clearfil Photo Posterior 0.53 Bis-Fil M 0.58 0.59 Multifil VS Prisma-Fil 0.60 The surface textures of a selection of composite
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 brands are displayed in Figs. 1
out by Lambrechts et al (1984, 1985, 1987) and Braem et al. (1987a) have provided a large number of detailed tooth replicas. From this research material, a selection was made for measurement of the roughness at enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas. A computerized roughness tester (Form Talysurf 10, Rank Taylor Hobson, Leicester, UK) was used for determination of
the average surface roughness (Ra) of the occlusal enamel facets on the replicas. The maximum peak-to-valley height within the evaluation length (Rt) was also determined. Both values, Ra and Rt, provide information about the mean and the maximum roughness height (i.e., peak-to-valley) of the surface irregu-
larities.
The Form Talysurf incorporates a traverse unit that houses the motor and gearbox for traversing a stylus across the surface of a specimen, a two-axis laser interferometric transducer coupled to a pivotted stylus, and a microcomputer for controlling the direct data-input from the traverse unit. The straight traverse is made under computer control after the stylus has been manually positioned above the selected spot. A stereomicroscope (Wild M5A, Wild Heerbrugg, Switzerland) was used for
1.25 0.88 1.29 1.24 1.00 1.06 1.23 0.99 1.45 0.98 1.65 1.52 2.47 1.71 1.54 1.78 1.75 2.14 2.11 1.95 2.25 1.54 2.77 1.97 2.26 4.30 3.20 4.40 2.83 4.51 4.48 3.84 4.98 3.18 3.04 3.30 7.18 7.58 4.95 to 8.
0.73 0.12 0.60 0.49 0.03 0.08 0.55 0.06 0.29 0.02 0.48 0.37 0.50 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.92 0.25 0.28 0.21 0.33 0.01 0.64 0.03 0.02 0.97 0.12 1.18 0.27 1.30 0.93 0.08 1.06 0.25 0.06 0.28 1.05 0.08 0.28
-
3M, USA Coltbne, Switzerland Kulzer, Germany Kerr, Switzerland Kerr Vivadent Vivadent 3M Bayer, Germany Vivadent Johnson & Johnson Kulzer Bayer Coltene Caulk Dentsply, USA Coltene Johnson & Johnson Bayer Kerr
Bayer Pierre Roland, France Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Vivadent ESPE, Germany 3M Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Caulk Dentsply Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Dental Composites Ltd, UK Johnson & Johnson 3M Caulk Dentsply Kuraray, Japan Bisco, USA Kfilzer Caulk Dentsply
evaluation of correct stylus placement on the occlusal contact areas. The surface texture measurements were carried out at a traverse speed of 0.5 mm/s with a diamond-tipped stylus (tip dimensions: a 90° included-angle truncated-pyramid with ± 2 pm tip length and ± 0.5 pm tip width; beam length of 60 mm). System control and data processing were done via a desk-top computer. The results were in the form of visual displays of the profile form and surface texture and of numerical data. The average roughness or Ra value of a surface is defined as the average value of the departures of the profile above and below the reference line throughout the sampling length. Surface roughness values are normally taken as the mean results of several consecutive sampling lengths along the surface. The ISO-filtered assessments require a traverse distance equal to seven sampling lengths (one sampling length for run-up of the profilometer, five for assessment, and one for run-off). The sampling length is the length of a surface over which the parameter to be measured will have statistical significance without being long enough for irrelevant details to be included. When the stylus is traversed across the surface, its vertical
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 9, 2015 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol. 70 No. 9
SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF ENAMEL FACETS AND COMPOSITES
1301
TABLE 3 Ra- AND Rt-VALUES AFTER TOOTHBRUSH-DENTIFRICE ABRASION OF COMPOSITES ROUGHER THAN ENAMEL, IN ORDER OF
ROUGHNESSt Ra (pm) Product Name SD (pm) Rt (Axm) SD (km) Manufacturer Enamel* 0.64 1.25 5.72 0.25 0.65 Clearfil Ray Posterior 4.37 0.01 0.16 Kuraray P-30 0.67 0.05 1.33 5.07 3M Prisma Fil Compules 0.04 0.68 0.09 Caulk Dentsply 4.83 P-30 Improved APC 4.34 0.71 0.02 0.21 3M 0.74 Clearfll Lustre 10.31 2.14 0.11 Kuraray Bis-Fil I* 0.80 0.04 0.46 Bisco 5.48 0.83 Clearfill 6.83 Kuraray 0.08 3.38 Aurafill 0.85 0.05 0.29 Johnson & Johnson 6.32 Estilux Posterior 0.88 0.61 Kulzer 6.20 0.05 Estilux Hybrid VS 0.90 Kulzer 5.11 0.02 0.09 Nimetic 0.91 0.02 0.54 6.03 ESPE 0.94 Dental Composites Ltd Gem-CCI 0.85 7.58 0.03 Bell Firm PX 1.12 0.96 0.08 7.85 Kanebo, Japan 6.72 0.99 0.09 Occlusin* 0.61 ICI, UK Miradapt 11.38 1.01 0.16 3.54 Johnson & Johnson 1.02 3M 6.04 0.07 P-10 0.60 6.24 1.07 0.05 Marathon* 0.25 Den-Mat, USA 0.14 6.93 1.08 0.02 Visio Molar Radiopaque ESPE Adaptic Radiopaque 1.81 11.63 1.08 0.01 Johnson & Johnson 6.46 1.17 Photo Clearfil A 0.08 Kuraray 0.03 7.18 1.18 0.03 0.23 Kuraray Clearfil Ray 1.19 Restolux SP4 8.16 0.05 0.63 Lee Pharmaceuticals, USA Visio-Fil 1.23 0.01 0.16 ESPE 7.87 1.26 0.06 Graft 0.12 8.06 GC, Japan 11.87 0.01 1.46 Epolite 100 0.40 GC Estilux Posterior CVS 1.48 8.65 0.06 0.15 Kulzer 12.04 1.50 1.89 0.05 Opalux ICI Litefil A 1.56 10.51 0.06 0.34 Shofu Inc., Japan For comparison: 0.43 4.29 0.05 0.00 Cavex non-gamma-2 Cavex, The Netherlands *The surface textures of a selection of composite brands and of enamel occlusal contact areas are displayed in Figs. 1 to 8. tA vertical bar represents materials with significant surface-roughness difference compared with enamel after one-sided t test performance at a significance level of p
The purpose of this study was to determine the surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas in order to provide a standard for comparison with surface characteristics of commercially available composite restorative materials. In addition, the inherent surface roughness of resin composites was evaluated profilometrically after a toothbrush abrasion procedure. A one-sided t-test analysis was performed to outline significant differences between the surface roughness value of enamel facets and that of the respective composite samples. A surface roughness of 0.64 + 0.25 pum (mean + S.D.) was found for the enamel-to-enamel contact areas. J Dent Res 70(9):1299-1305, September, 1991
occlusal contact areas. This smoothness will benefit the composite wear as well as the antagonistic enamel wear. To meet smoothness requirements, the intrinsic surface roughness of resin composites must be equal to or less than the average roughness value of enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas (Lambrechts et al., 1988). The purpose of this present study was two-fold. First, the intrinsic surface roughness obtained after in vitro toothbrushing of commercially available resin composites with a dentifrice was examined profilometrically and with scanning electron microscopy. Second, the average surface-roughness value of in vivo enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas was determined quantitatively for use as a criterion for comparison with the surface roughness of composite restoratives.
Introduction. Acceptance standards for posterior composites are being sought by dental materials groups (ADA Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment, 1989). The most logical approach would be to choose human enamel as a general standard, since it is the biological material that is replaced after occlusal cavity preparation; the ideal restorative material should mimic the properties of the tissues it replaces. This is true for color match (Bausch, 1982), thermal expansion coefficient (Dickson, 1979; Craig, 1989), radiopacity (Hein et al., 1989), modulus of elasticity (Braem et al., 1987b), and compressive strength (Craig, 1989). The rate of wear of enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas due to attrition has recently been measured in vivo (Lambrechts et al., 1989), and the resulting quantitative data can serve as a physiological wear standard. The attrition of a restoration is of clinical importance only if it differs from the vertical enamel wear under physiological conditions. Some posterior composites presently show a wear rate comparable with that of enamel (Roulet, 1987). The dental practitioner must carefully evaluate the probable abrasive effects of using certain restorative materials like porcelain or resin composites to oppose existing tooth structure (Chapman and Nathanson, 1983; Lambrechts et al., 1987). The surface of the composite filling contains both resin matrix and filler particles. Therefore, if there is a mismatch between the filler hardness and surface roughness of the composite and that of enamel, there is a danger that the enamel will be worn down. During mastication, composite filler particles may scratch and abrade the antagonistic enamel. The vertical dimension will thus decrease if premolar and molar regions are treated with such a restorative material. Therefore, the surface texture and the particle size, shape, size distribution, and hardness play important roles in determining the biological strength of composite restorations. A smooth surface provides reduced frictional wear at the Received for publication June 25, 1990 Accepted for publication April 15, 1991
Materials and methods. Enamel study. -Long-term wear studies on composites and amalgams in the premolar and molar regions in vivo carried TABLE 1 SURFACE ROUGHNESS VALUES OF ENAMEL-TO-ENAMEL OCCLUSAL CONTACT AREAS Ra SD SD Rt Tooth Patient (Atm) (Am) (Pm) (Pm) 1 0.81 0.08 4.02 0.38 26 0.27 0.02 3.21 0.65 0.04 0.47 0.49 4.77 0.47 0.11 1.42 5.01 0.04 5.76 0.54 0.53 0.42 0.05 5.21 0.88 0.36 0.10 3.89 1.69 47 0.50 0.04 5.18 0.63 2 16 0.69 0.02 3.67 0.39 7.23 3.87 0.91 0.25 0.74 0.05 8.09 1.18 35 0.09 1.96 36 0.30 5.34 0.02 0.48 0.89 4.18 6.42 1.67 0.77 0.19 0.02 6.02 0.19 0.79 0.06 5.74 1.10 2 36 0.71 0.03 6.41 0.58 46 0.51 1.61 46 1.04 0.06 7.78 3 1.35 1.11 0.01 8.35 6.02 1.44 0.94 0.22 0.63 0.09 4.25 0.40 0.59 0.58 0.06 5.23 1.44 8.83 37 1.07 0.15 6 10.09 5.24 0.32 1.00 0.68 4.75 0.02 47 0.39 0.58 4.08 0.35 0.05 2.79 0.27 5.90 0.53 1.43 0.11 4.35 0.40 0.80 5.62 0.10 0.72 7 26 0.46 6.16 0.11 0.69 Ra = surface roughness. Rt = maximum peak-to-valley height.
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 9, 2015 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
1299
1300
WILLEMS et aLJJ Dent Res September 1991
TABLE 2 Ra- AND Rt-VALUES AFTER TOOTHBRUSH-DENTIFRICE ABRASION OF COMPOSITES SMOOTHER THAN ENAMEL, IN ORDER OF ROUGHNESS SD (tAm) Rt (Am) Product Name Ra (Im) SD (lm) Manufacturer Heliosit 0.07 0.01 0.62 0.31 Vivadent, Liechtenstein 0.08 0.01 0.77 0.20 Certain Johnson & Johnson, USA 0.09 0.01 0.86 Heliomolar* 0.26 Vivadent
Silux Brilliant Dentin Durafill Herculite XR* Herculite condensable Helioprogress Heliomolar Radiopaque Silux Plus Bayer D 653/5 SR Isosit Answer
0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18
Durafill VS Pekalux 0.19 Brilliant Lux 0.19 Prisma-Microfine 0.20 Brilliant DI 0.21 Adaptic LCM 0.21 Lumifor 0.21 Command Ultrafine 0.22 Bayer D 632/6 0.22 Amalux* 0.22 Prisma-Microfine Compules 0.25 Amalux Sintergel NC 0.26 EOS 0.26 Visio-Dispers 0.27 Valux 0.29 Prisma APH Sinterlux 0.33 0.34 Biogloss 0.39 Ful-fil computes Amalux 2 0.44 0.46 Gem-Lite I 0.48 Adaptic II* 0.48 P-50 Ful-Fil 0.50 Clearfil Photo Posterior 0.53 Bis-Fil M 0.58 0.59 Multifil VS Prisma-Fil 0.60 The surface textures of a selection of composite
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 brands are displayed in Figs. 1
out by Lambrechts et al (1984, 1985, 1987) and Braem et al. (1987a) have provided a large number of detailed tooth replicas. From this research material, a selection was made for measurement of the roughness at enamel-to-enamel occlusal contact areas. A computerized roughness tester (Form Talysurf 10, Rank Taylor Hobson, Leicester, UK) was used for determination of
the average surface roughness (Ra) of the occlusal enamel facets on the replicas. The maximum peak-to-valley height within the evaluation length (Rt) was also determined. Both values, Ra and Rt, provide information about the mean and the maximum roughness height (i.e., peak-to-valley) of the surface irregu-
larities.
The Form Talysurf incorporates a traverse unit that houses the motor and gearbox for traversing a stylus across the surface of a specimen, a two-axis laser interferometric transducer coupled to a pivotted stylus, and a microcomputer for controlling the direct data-input from the traverse unit. The straight traverse is made under computer control after the stylus has been manually positioned above the selected spot. A stereomicroscope (Wild M5A, Wild Heerbrugg, Switzerland) was used for
1.25 0.88 1.29 1.24 1.00 1.06 1.23 0.99 1.45 0.98 1.65 1.52 2.47 1.71 1.54 1.78 1.75 2.14 2.11 1.95 2.25 1.54 2.77 1.97 2.26 4.30 3.20 4.40 2.83 4.51 4.48 3.84 4.98 3.18 3.04 3.30 7.18 7.58 4.95 to 8.
0.73 0.12 0.60 0.49 0.03 0.08 0.55 0.06 0.29 0.02 0.48 0.37 0.50 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.92 0.25 0.28 0.21 0.33 0.01 0.64 0.03 0.02 0.97 0.12 1.18 0.27 1.30 0.93 0.08 1.06 0.25 0.06 0.28 1.05 0.08 0.28
-
3M, USA Coltbne, Switzerland Kulzer, Germany Kerr, Switzerland Kerr Vivadent Vivadent 3M Bayer, Germany Vivadent Johnson & Johnson Kulzer Bayer Coltene Caulk Dentsply, USA Coltene Johnson & Johnson Bayer Kerr
Bayer Pierre Roland, France Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Vivadent ESPE, Germany 3M Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Caulk Dentsply Caulk Dentsply Pierre Roland Dental Composites Ltd, UK Johnson & Johnson 3M Caulk Dentsply Kuraray, Japan Bisco, USA Kfilzer Caulk Dentsply
evaluation of correct stylus placement on the occlusal contact areas. The surface texture measurements were carried out at a traverse speed of 0.5 mm/s with a diamond-tipped stylus (tip dimensions: a 90° included-angle truncated-pyramid with ± 2 pm tip length and ± 0.5 pm tip width; beam length of 60 mm). System control and data processing were done via a desk-top computer. The results were in the form of visual displays of the profile form and surface texture and of numerical data. The average roughness or Ra value of a surface is defined as the average value of the departures of the profile above and below the reference line throughout the sampling length. Surface roughness values are normally taken as the mean results of several consecutive sampling lengths along the surface. The ISO-filtered assessments require a traverse distance equal to seven sampling lengths (one sampling length for run-up of the profilometer, five for assessment, and one for run-off). The sampling length is the length of a surface over which the parameter to be measured will have statistical significance without being long enough for irrelevant details to be included. When the stylus is traversed across the surface, its vertical
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 9, 2015 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol. 70 No. 9
SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF ENAMEL FACETS AND COMPOSITES
1301
TABLE 3 Ra- AND Rt-VALUES AFTER TOOTHBRUSH-DENTIFRICE ABRASION OF COMPOSITES ROUGHER THAN ENAMEL, IN ORDER OF
ROUGHNESSt Ra (pm) Product Name SD (pm) Rt (Axm) SD (km) Manufacturer Enamel* 0.64 1.25 5.72 0.25 0.65 Clearfil Ray Posterior 4.37 0.01 0.16 Kuraray P-30 0.67 0.05 1.33 5.07 3M Prisma Fil Compules 0.04 0.68 0.09 Caulk Dentsply 4.83 P-30 Improved APC 4.34 0.71 0.02 0.21 3M 0.74 Clearfll Lustre 10.31 2.14 0.11 Kuraray Bis-Fil I* 0.80 0.04 0.46 Bisco 5.48 0.83 Clearfill 6.83 Kuraray 0.08 3.38 Aurafill 0.85 0.05 0.29 Johnson & Johnson 6.32 Estilux Posterior 0.88 0.61 Kulzer 6.20 0.05 Estilux Hybrid VS 0.90 Kulzer 5.11 0.02 0.09 Nimetic 0.91 0.02 0.54 6.03 ESPE 0.94 Dental Composites Ltd Gem-CCI 0.85 7.58 0.03 Bell Firm PX 1.12 0.96 0.08 7.85 Kanebo, Japan 6.72 0.99 0.09 Occlusin* 0.61 ICI, UK Miradapt 11.38 1.01 0.16 3.54 Johnson & Johnson 1.02 3M 6.04 0.07 P-10 0.60 6.24 1.07 0.05 Marathon* 0.25 Den-Mat, USA 0.14 6.93 1.08 0.02 Visio Molar Radiopaque ESPE Adaptic Radiopaque 1.81 11.63 1.08 0.01 Johnson & Johnson 6.46 1.17 Photo Clearfil A 0.08 Kuraray 0.03 7.18 1.18 0.03 0.23 Kuraray Clearfil Ray 1.19 Restolux SP4 8.16 0.05 0.63 Lee Pharmaceuticals, USA Visio-Fil 1.23 0.01 0.16 ESPE 7.87 1.26 0.06 Graft 0.12 8.06 GC, Japan 11.87 0.01 1.46 Epolite 100 0.40 GC Estilux Posterior CVS 1.48 8.65 0.06 0.15 Kulzer 12.04 1.50 1.89 0.05 Opalux ICI Litefil A 1.56 10.51 0.06 0.34 Shofu Inc., Japan For comparison: 0.43 4.29 0.05 0.00 Cavex non-gamma-2 Cavex, The Netherlands *The surface textures of a selection of composite brands and of enamel occlusal contact areas are displayed in Figs. 1 to 8. tA vertical bar represents materials with significant surface-roughness difference compared with enamel after one-sided t test performance at a significance level of p
