A wide variety of dental products that are launched on the market becomes the correct selection of these materials a difficult task. Although the mechanical properties do not necessarily represent their actual clinical performance, they are used to guide the effects of changes in their composition or processing on these properties. Also, these tests might help somehow the clinician to choose once comparisons between former formulations and new ones, as well as, with the leading brand, are highlighted by manufactures. This paper presents a review of the most important laboratory tests. In this manner, the knowledge of these tests will provide a critical opinion related to the properties of different dental materials.

Keywords: Compressive strength; Post and core technique; Resin cements; X-ray microtomography

The purpose of this study was to measure mass loss and surface roughness changes of different brands of flowable resin composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. The null hypotheses were that there would be no differences in mass loss and no significant changes in surface roughness after this test and that there would be no correlation between the two variables. The tested materials were Aeliteflo (Bisco), Flow-It (Pentron), Flow-It LF (Pentron), Natural Flow (DFL) and Wave (SDI). Z100 (3M/ESPE) microhybrid and Silux Plus (3M/ESPE) microfilled resin composites were used as control materials. Twelve specimens (5 mm in diameter, 3 mm thick) of each material were prepared according to manufacturers' instructions. Toothbrushing abrasion was performed on all specimens from each of the materials using a simulator. The percentage mass loss and surface roughness were assessed before and after 100,000 brushstrokes, using a Sartorius analytical balance of 0.0001 g accuracy and a Hommel Tester T1000, respectively. The measurements of both properties were statistically compared by paired t-test and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). All materials presented a statistically significant mass loss comparing initial and final values, with the exception of Flow-It LF. However, no difference was revealed when comparing the mass loss of the different tested materials. All materials became rougher and Wave presented statistically higher roughness compared to the other resin composites. Flowable resin composites did not seem to be superior to the control groups, and they can be expected to wear by mass loss and to have an increased roughness of surface after toothbrushing action. The anticipated null hypotheses were partially accepted.