DOI 10.

1007/s11029-020-09878-2
Mechanics of Composite Materials, Vol. 56, No. 2, May, 2020 (Russian Original Vol. 56, No. 2, March-April, 2020)

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF CHEWING FORCE AND

AN ABRASIVE MEDIUM ON THE WEAR RESISTANCE

OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS BY CHEWING SIMULATION

E. Yilmaz*

Keywords: composite resin, wear, chewing force, volume loss, chewing simulation

Various composite materials used as biomaterials were tested by 20-, 50-, and 80-N chewing forces in distilled
water and a poppy seed medium by using a computer-controlled chewing simulation procedure. In each chewing
test, steatite balls 6 mm in diameter were used as an antagonist material. The mean volume loss of worn surfaces
and the surface roughness of the composite materials was measured with a contactless 3D profilometer.

1. Introduction

It is important to determine the wear and fatigue behavior of composite materials in laboratory conditions, because
the testing in vivo is costly, time-consuming, and raises ethical problems. The intraoral tribological process in the mouth is
continuous and complex. Therefore, it is very difficult to simulate it in a laboratory environment. There are basically four
different wear mechanisms in the intraoral tribological process, which are called the two-body wear (occlusal contact area
or wear), three-body wear (noncontact area), fatigue wear, and corrosive wear. In the two-body wear, the material and tooth
surface wear out when they are in a direct contact without the presence of another body. In the three-body abrasive wear, a
third abrasive body, such as food, between two moving surfaces, is present during the chewing cycle. The fatigue wear can
be defined as cracking under the subsurface of a composite material due to the repeated loading during the chewing motion.
The chemical acids existing in the food can cause corrosive actions on the surface layer. The acid layer can be easily removed
by an antagonist material during the chewing cycle. These types of wear can occur alone or in a combination [1]. Generally,
dental materials are exposed to the two-body wear (attrition) and three-body abrasions during the motion of mouth [2]. The

Kilis 7 Aralık University Engineering Faculty Department of Mechanical Engineering/ Kilis / Turkey
*
Corresponding author; tel.: +90 542 7645018 ; fax:+90 348 8143098; e-mail: [email protected]

Russian translation published in Mekhanika Kompozitnykh Materialov, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 387-398, March-April,
2020. Original article submitted January 29, 2019; revision submitted November 7, 2019.

0191-5665/20/5602-0261 © 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 261

 TABLE 1. Chemical Properties of the Composite Materials Used in this Study
Composition
Composite Manufacturer /Type Filler wt.% /
materials Monomer Filler / average size vol.%
Bis-GMA ZrO2, SiO2, SiO2, Ba–Al–B–Si
Voco Grandio VOCO / Nanohybrid TEGDMA, 87 / 72
Bis-EMA Glass / 0,1-2,5µm
Bis-GMA, UDMA, Nanosilica zirconia/silica
Filtek Supreme 3M ESPE / nanofilled BisEMA, 78 / 60
TEGDMA Nanoclusters (nanoparticle size) (5-20nm)
Heraeus Kulzer / Bis-GMA, UDMA, SiO2 (20–70 nm), prepolymer (<20 mm),
Durafill 66 / 82
microfilled TEGDMA SiO2 in the prepolymer

two-body (attrition) wear takes place in the occlusal contact areas, but the three-body abrasion wear — in an occlusion-free
area [3]. It has been reported that chewing simulators can imitate the attrition and abrasive wear mechanisms in a laboratory
environment [4-7].
In the literature, it is kmown that the bite force is one of the most important parameters in the in vitro chewing test
procedure [8]. The bite force during the chewing motion varies between individuals in a wide range [9]. The average chew-
ing force varies from 10 to 120 N [10, 11]. The maximum force in the anterior region varies between 190 and 290 N, but in
the molar region — between 200 and 360 N [9]. The force profile during chewing has the form of a half-sinus wave, with a
repetition frequency of 0.2-1.5 Hz [9]. Therefore, it is important that chewing simulator devices can simulate the chewing
force changing during the motion of mouth. However, in many chewing tests, the change in the bite force and the presence of
an abrasive medium were ignored [12-14]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the effect of chewing force and
abrasive medium on the wear resistance of different composite materials by chewing simulation. The null hypotheses tested
in this study is that the bite force and the presence of a third-body media particles affect the wear resistance of composite
materials insignificantly in vitro chewing test procedures.

2.Material and Method

2.1. Specimen preparation and wear testing

The mechanical and chemical properties of the composite materials tested in this study are indicated in Table 1 (this
information was provided by material manufacturers). Standardized cylindrical specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm high)
were prepared from each composite material under the conditions recommended by the manufacturer. Half of the specimens
of each test group were immersed in distilled water, but the other one — in poppy seeds as a third-body medium. Chewing
forces of 20, 50, and 80 N were used in the chewing simulation procedures, with steatite balls 6 mm in diameter adopted as
the antagonist abrasive material. Figure 1 shows the example of a composite sample embedded in an acrylic resin and the
antagonist material. The biaxial chewing simulation device performed 240,000 chewing cycles with a frequency of 1.6 Hz at
an ambient temperature of 37oC. Figure 2 shows the biaxial chewing simulation device.

2.2. Determination of surface roughness, hardness, microstructure, and the volume of wear loss

The composite specimens were kept in distilled water for one week, and their Vickers hardness (HV) and surface
roughness (Ra) were determined before contact-free wear tests in the chewing motion. A load of 0.5 kg was applied to them
for 60 s using a pyramidal indenter. The Vickers hardness of the composite materials was calculated by the formula.

262
 a b

Fig. 1. Example of a composite sample embedded in an acrylic composite material (a) and the steatite
balls used as the antagonist material (b).

a b c d
Step 1: Step 3:
Loading Unloading

Step 2:
Lateral movement

Fig. 2. Schematics of the biaxial chewing simulation device: abrasive medium unit (a), loading by
the chewing force (b), lateral movement (c), and the setup of chewing loading (d).

HV = (0.102F sin 136 / 2) / d 2 , (1)

where F is the force (9.81 m/s 2 × mass in kg) and d is the diagonal of indenter pyramid base.
The roughness of specimen surface was determined using a three-dimensional contactless profilometer (Bruker-
Contour GT 3D). The wear area of composite specimens was scanned on 5 × 5-mm square areas spaced at 8 µm along the x
axis and 12 µm along the y axis. The average measurement time was approximately 40 min. The average of all roughness
values obtained for the square areas was recorded as the surface roughness of specimen.
The 3D and 2D profilometer images of composite specimens were analyzed for the volume loss after the contact-free
wear chewing tests (using a contactless Bruker-Contour GT 3D profilometer). The wear analysis of biomaterials can be evaluated
by different methods — by a profilometer, an optical sensor, or laser scanning [15]. It has been found that the volume losses
in the wear depth and along lateral axes are significantly related to each other. Therefore, wear analyzes were performed using
the 3D contactless profilometer. After the contactless chewing tests, the wear surfaces of composite specimens were sputtered
with gold, and their SEM images were taken by a ZEISS SIGMA 300 apparatus.

2.3. Statistical analysis

The data obtained were analyzed using a statistical software (SPSS Statics 20.0 for Windows 64 bit; SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). The means and standard deviations of Ra, HV, and volume loss were calculated and analyzed using the
two-way ANOVA. The Games–Howell test was used for a post hoc analysis, because Levene’s test showed significant dif-
ferences in the variance of the groups. A regression analysis was performed to investigate the relation between HV and the
volume loss. The significance level was set to α = 0.05.

263
 TABLE 2. Vickers Hardness, Surface Roughness, and the Mean Volume Loss of Composite Materials under Different
Chewing Forces and in the Ambient Medium (Standard Deviation)

Material
Characteristics
Durafil Grandio Supreme
HV, MPa 84.5 (8.9) 93.4 (11.7) 41.8 (6.1)
Ra, mm 0.14 (0.03) 0.12 (0.05) 0.09 (0.03)
Mean volume loss DV in distilled water
F = 20 N 0.39 (0.11) 0.31(0.07) 0.45 (0.07)
F = 50 N 0.47 (0.13) 0.43 (0.03) 0.59 (0.15)
F = 80 N 0.54 (0.09) 0.51 (0.07) 0.68 (0.12)
Mean volume loss DV in a poppy seed slurry as a third-body medium
F = 20 N 1.03 (0.26) 0.28 (0.10) 0.41(0.06)
F = 50 N 1.71 (0.21) 0.37 (0.13) 0.56 (0.09)
F = 80 N 2.28 (0.43) 0.42 (0.11) 0.67 (0.07)
*
The standard deviation is indicated in perentheses.

TABLE 3. Data of Two-Way ANOVA Analyses for the Mean Wear Volume Loss of Composite Materials

Factor DF Sum of squares Mean square F ratio Significance

Composite 5 2.13 0.49 7.74 <0.0005
Condition 2 10.96 5.75 97.79 <0.0005
Composite X Condition 10 29.88 3.02 47.73 <0.0005
Error 68 5.74 0.08
C.Total 85 62.54

3.Results

Table 2 shows the mechanical and wear behavior of composite materials immersed in distilled water and a poppy
seed slurry as third-body particles and subjected to different chewing force loadings. It is seen that the filler structure of the
composite material has an important effect on its hardness and surface roughness. Figure 3 shows examples of 3D surface
wear analyses for all the composite materials tested. Among the composite materials tested the highest loss of wear volume
exhibited the Durafil composite subjected to a 80-N chewing force in a poppy seed slurry as the third-body medium. Figure 4
shows the microstructure of all tested composite materials immersed in a poppy seed slurry and loaded by a 80-N chewing
force. A SEM analysis revealed the formation of abrasion lines and cracks on the wear surface of Durafil composite mate-
rial. The regression analysis showed no significant correlation between HV and the volume loss ( p = 0.915). Table 3 sum-
marizes the two-way ANOVA results for the volume loss.

4.Discussion

In this study, various dental composite materials were subjected to wear tests under different chewing forces in distilled
water and poppy seeds as a third medium. The dental composite materials tested are available at the market and are widely
used in the dental treatment. In a clinical study, the composition of a composite material is a vital parameter, because it affects

264
 a

Fig. 3. Examples of 3D profilometer analyses of the wear surface of Durafil (a), Supreme (b), and
Grandio (c) (on the left: general surface analyses, on the right: wear area analyses).

the mechanical properties of the material, such as its hardness, abrasion, surface roughness, and elasticity modulus. Composite
materials are highly resistant to fracture and abrasion and are useful in long-term treatment processes. They can contain vari-
ous micro- or nanoparticles and then they are called micro- and nanohybrid composites, respectively [16]. Generally, such
composite resins are called universal and commercially. It is often difficult to distinguish between micro- and nano-hybrids

265
 a b c

Fig. 4. Wear surfaces of Durafil (a), Supreme (b), and Grandio (c) composite materialls under a 80-N
chewing force in a poppy seed slurry as a third-body medium.

because both the microstructure and mechanical properties tend to be similar [16]. Composite materials exhibit different wear
resistances in the changing wear environment of intraoral tribology [5, 17, 18], but only very limited chewing tests under
varying chewing forces in various abrasive media have been considered in the literature.
In clinical studies, the human chewing movement produces bite forces between about 20 and 120 N [15]. In vivo
studies, a bite forces of 20 N for boiled potatoes, 60 N for raw carrots, and 100-120 N for boiled rice grain were reported [19].
Another factors affecting the chewing force are the sex and age. Females normally produce lower chewing forces than males,
but young adults have higher chewing forces than older ones [20, 21]. Therefore, it is important that in vitro chewing tests
can simulate the changing bite forces. In many studies, chewing tests were performed at a constant chewing force [3, 4, 17,
22]. In our study, poppy seeds were selected as a third-body abrasive medium to model the daily food of humans. In few
studies, PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) particles were taken as a third-body medium, even though it is not a daily food
[6, 18]. The size of the poppy seeds used in this study was approximately 1 mm. It is known that poppy seeds create irregular
stresses distributions on the wear surface of the composite material during chewing tests [5, 17]. In our study, all specimens
were stored in 37°C distilled water for seven days prior to the chewing test. It has been observed that the storage period
affects the mechanical properties of the material, such as its wear resistance, hardness, and tensile strength [23, 24]. It was
found that the storage of composite materials for one week or one year in distilled water had no significant effect on their
wear behavior [25]. Therefore, it can be assumed that the composite material is completely saturated already after one week
in distilled water. However, the results gained will vary, because there is no specific geometry of the human teeth, and each
material will show different mechanical and esthetic properties [26]. Therefore, the use of antagonist materials with the same
mechanical and aesthetic properties in chewing tests will increase the validity of results. Moreover, the hardness, geometric
shape, and size of the antagonist material are important, because they effect the wear of contact surface. A change in the
mechanical properties and contact angle of the antagonist material directly affects the wear mechanism in the oral tribology.
Therefore, in this study, all the antagonist materials used had a diameter of 6 mm in the circular dimension. It is reported in
the literature that such an antagonist material can mimic the human molar teeth [3, 27, 28].
It has been proposed to increase the abrasive resistance of the resin matrix rather than the surface hardness to
improve the wear resistance of composite materials [13]. Although the Supreme composite material has a lower surface
hardness than the Durafill composite, it exhibited a good wear resistance after immersion in poppy seeds in the chewing
test (as a third-body particle). Predominant bisGMA-based monomer structures mixed with other dimethacrylates, such
as TEGDMA, have been developed due to their high viscosity to increase the mechanical properties of the commercial
composite materials used in dentistry [13]. A three-year clinical study has shown that urethane-based composites exhibit a
significantly higher wear resistance than the bisGMA-based monomer structure [29].
In examining the microstructures of differentcomposite materials examined, deep wear lines were found in the Durafil
composite material subjected to a 80-N chewing force in a poppy seed slurry as the third-body medium (Fig. 4). The Supreme

266
composite material showed more elastic wear behavior than Durafil composite under these conditions (Fig. 4a). However,
microcracks on the wear surface of the Supreme composite material were found after the wear test. The Grandio composite
material showed a very uniform wear area under the same conditions (Fig. 4b). This can be explained by the fact that the
Grandio composite has a nanopolymer structure. However, small voids were seen on the entire surface of this material along
its edges. They were caused by the mechanical impacts of vertical loading, which created plastic deformations in the composite
material owing to the sliding motion of particles on the material wear surface.
The composite materials considered in this study generally showed similar two-body wear behavior in distilled water
under all chewing forces. But the Durafill composite material exhibited different wear behavior immersed in distilled water
and in a poppy seed slurry, irrespective of the chewing force applied. It has been reported in the literature that the Durafil
composite material manifests worse wear behavior in a poppy seed slurry medium than in distilled water [6, 18]. Deep wear
tracks arise in it in the direction of lateral chewing movement, which can lead to a catastrophic failure, as observed in clinical
trials [30, 31]. The results obtained in our study indicate that the resin binder has not a significantly affect on the mean volume
loss in three-body abrasive wear tests, which was also mentioned in [4].

5. Conclusion

From the results of our study, it can be concluded that, with increase in the chewing force, the volume loss of the
wear surface of composite materials grows in the chewing process. However, the prepolymer monomer included in the
composite material increases the volume loss in a poppy seed slurry medium. Therefore, the use of a pre-polymer structure
in composite materials should be avoided, or the size of the inorganic filler should be reduced to a nanosize. A SEM analysis
after chewing cycles revealed noticeable microcracks and pits on the wear surface of the Durafill composite material, which
could be the continuation of the cracks that occur on the subsurface of the composite material and could be considered as
an indication of fatigue wear. Therefore, future investigations into the fatigue wear mechanism have to be carried out under
different chewing forces.

REFERENCES

1. L.H. Mair et al., “Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop,” J. Dentistry., 24,
Nos. 1-2, 141-148 (1996).
2. P. Lambrechts et al., “Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel”, J Dent Res., 68, No. 12, 1752-1754 (1989).
3. D. Lazaridou et al., “Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear”, Clin Oral
Investig., 19, No. 6, 1485-1492 (2015).
4. E. C. Yilmaz and R. Sadeler, “Investigation of three-body wear of dental materials under different chewing cycles”,
Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, 25, No. 4, 781-787 (2018).
5. E. C. Yilmaz and R. Sadeler, “Investigation of two- and three-body wear resistance on flowable bulk-fill and resin-based
composites,” Mech. Compos. Mater., 54, No. 3, 195-402 (2018).
6. N. Koottathape et al., “Quantitative wear and wear damage analysis of composite resins in vitro,” Journal of the Me-
chanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 29, 508-516 (2014).
7. T. Wimmer et al., “Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geom-
etries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration,” Dental Materials, 32, No. 6, 127-136 (2016).
8. M.Ghazal and M. Kern, “Wear of human enamel and nano-filled composite resin denture teeth under different loading
forces,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 36, No. 1, 58-64 (2009).
9. M. Steiner et al., “In vitro evaluation of a mechanical testing chewing simulator”, Dental Materials, 25, No. 4, 494-
499 (2009).

267
 10. K. Kohyama et al., “Effects of sample hardness on human chewing force: a model study using silicone rubber,” Archives
of Oral Biology, 49, No. 10, 805-816 (2004).
11. J. A. De Boever et al., “Functional occlusal forces: an investigation by telemetry”, J Prosthet Dent., 40, No. 3, 326-333 (1978).
12. S. Hahnel et al., “Two-body wear of dental restorative materials,” J Mech Behav Biomed Mater., 4, No. 3, 237-244 (2011).
13. L. Q. Cao et al., “An in vitro investigation of wear resistance and hardness of composite resins,” International Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 6, No. 6, 423-430 (2013).
14. A. Ramalho, M.D.B. de Carvalho, and P.V. Antunes, “Effects of temperature on mechanical and tribological properties
of dental restorative composite materials,” Tribology International, 63, 186-195 (2013).
15. S. D. Heintze, “How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods,” Dental Materials, 22, No. 8,
712-734 (2006).
16. J. C. M. Souza et al., “Abrasive and sliding wear of resin composites for dental restorations,” Tribology International,
102, 154-160 (2016).
17. M.A. Osiewicz et al., “Contact- and contact-free wear between various resin composites,” Dental Materials, 31, No. 2,
134-140 (2015).
18. N. Koottathape et al., “Two- and three-body wear of composite resins”, Dental Materials, 28, No. 12, 1261-1270 (2012).
19. H. J. Schindler, E. Stengel, and W.E. Spiess, “Feedback control during mastication of solid food textures — a clinical-
experimental study,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 80, No. 3, 330-336 (1998).
20. T. Shinogaya et al., “Effects of ethnicity, gender and age on clenching force and load distribution,” Clin Oral Investig.,
5, No. 1, 63-68 (2001).
21. C. K. Yeh et al., “Association of salivary flow rates with maximal bite force,” J Dent Res., 79, No. 8, 1560-1565 (2000).
22. C. Mehl et al., “Wear of composite resin veneering materials and enamel in a chewing simulator,” Dental Materials,
23, No. 11, 1382-1389 (2007).
23. A. U. J. Yap, S.H. Teoh, and K.B. Tan, “Influence of water exposure on three-body wear of composite restoratives,”
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 53, No. 5, 547-553 (2000).
24. E. Yilmaz and R. Sadeler, “Effect of thermal cycling and microhardness on roughness of composite restorative materi-
als,” Journal of Restorative Dentistry, 4, No. 3, 93-96 (2016).
25. R.G. Chadwick et al., “The effect of storage media upon the surface microhardness and abrasion resistance of 3 com-
posites,” Dental Materials, 6, No. 2, 123-128 (1990).
26. S. D. Heintze et al., “Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear
simulation methods,” Dental Materials, 22, No. 2, 166-175 (2006).
27. R. W. Wassell, J.F. McCabe, and A.W. Walls, “Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test,” Dental Materials, 10,
No. 4, 269-274 (1994).
28. I. Krejci et al., “Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements,” journal of prosthetic dentistry,
69, No. 4, 425-430 (1993).
29. K. J. M. Soderholm et al., “Visual and profilometric wear measurements,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 50, No.
2, 121-127 (1992).
30. P. Lambrechts, M. Braem, and G. Vanherle, “Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for
posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives,” Oper Dent., 12, No. 2, 53-78 (1987).
31. M. J. Tyas and P. Wassenaar, “Clinical evaluation of four composite resins in posterior teeth five-year results,” Aust.
Dent. J., 36, No. 5, 369-373 (1991).

268