Gloss retention of direct composites and corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To compare gloss retention of four different resin composites with their corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks. Materials and methods Four direct resin composites (Filtek Supreme XTE A2 Body (3M, USA), Tetric EvoCeram A2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), GrandioSO x‐tra A2 (VOCO, Germany), G‐aenial Universal A2 (GC, Japan)), and their corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks were tested. A total of 288 samples were prepared and three different tests were performed: brushing, exposition to acidic fluoride gel and exposition to alcoholic solution. Gloss values were obtained by means of a glossmeter at T0 before aging and T60 after 1 h of aging. Results Mean gloss values ranged from 0.9 after brushing tests to 79.0 after the alcohol test witnessing a high gloss variability depending on the materials and the aging test. Statistical analysis by means of two‐way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Fisher's LSD post‐hoc test revealed significant differences between materials, storage media, and their interactions. Conclusion Gloss retention seems to be dependent on the composite type (direct or CAD/CAM block) and composite brand and varies in respect to the type of aging. CAD/CAM materials showed a higher resistance toward alcohol exposure.

Keywords

• CAD/CAM
• gloss resin composite