ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Mater.
Sec. Polymeric and Composite Materials
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmats.2025.1614811
Quantitative Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Mass Loss for Different Type of Composite Resin Used as Clear Aligner Attachments: In Vitro Study
Provisionally accepted
- King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objectives: Due to a lack of thorough published research, orthodontists' clinical preferences influenced the choice of clear aligner attachments composite resin. According to a recent study on bonded attachments, all evaluated composite reesins showed a notable volumetric loss during brushing and heat cycling, however brand-specific variations were observed. Nevertheless, mass loss and surface roughness are not straight away reported by the roughness and weight. Therefore, the aims of this research were to compare surface roughness and mass loss for six types of composites resins. Materials and Methods: Ninety rectangular composite resins attachments (2 × 4 × 1 mm) were fabricated using three flowable composite resins (Tetric PowerFlow, Filtek™ Supreme Flowable Restorative, Clearfil Majesty Flow) and three restorative composite resins (Tetric PowerFill, Filtek™ Supreme XTE Universal, Estelite Sigma Quick). Surface roughness and mass were recorded at baseline (T1) and after intervention (T2), which included thermocycling, simulated brushing, and abrasive testing. A 3D Optical Microscope profilometer and an analytical balance were used for measurement. Paired t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni post hoc tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Using paired t-test, all tested composite resins showed a statistically significant increase in surface roughness and mass loss (p < 0.05) except for Tetric PowerFill, which showed no significant surface change (p = 0.238) and reflected by homogenous parallel line; as abrasive effect; without obvious irregularities. Using post-hoc to compare the final roughness at (T2) between groups, Filtek™ Supreme XTE Universal exhibited the highest surface roughness and greatest mass loss (2.4% of total weight). Conclusion: Tetric PowerFill demonstrated superior resistance to surface wear and mass degradation, making it the most suitable material among those tested for long-term use as clear aligner attachments. In contrast, Filtek™ Supreme XTE Universal was the least resistant, indicating a higher need for clinical monitoring and potential replacement.
Keywords: Surface Properties, Profilometer, Analytical balance, Rectangular Attachments, Abrasive
Received: 22 Apr 2025; Accepted: 15 May 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Alshammari, Alshihah and Aldweesh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Rana Alshammari, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.