WEAR BEHAVIOUR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF POLYMER INFILTRATED CERAMIC MATERIAL COMPARED TO PRESSABLE GLASS CERAMIC | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 11, Volume 40, Issue 1, July 2015, Pages 65-70 PDF (407.38 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.58738 | ||
| Authors | ||
| E Elhomiamy1; Y Aboushady2; B El Malakh3 | ||
| 1Bachelor in dentistry, BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Alexandria | ||
| 2Professor of fixed prosthodontics, BDS, MSc, PhD, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Alexandria. | ||
| 3Professor of dental materials, BDS, MSc, PhD, Dental Biomaterial Department, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Alexandria. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Introduction: Multiple restorative materials with various chemical, mechanical and physical characteristics are used as permanent dental restorations. The appropriate selection of a restorative material is crucial for preserving the occlusal harmony and normal masticatory function. Several aspects during selection of restorative materials should be considered, among which are the wear behaviour and abrasive nature of the restorative materials and natural enamel. Objectives: The study determines the two-body wear and surface roughness measurement, of polymer infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic) and pressable lithium disilicate based ceramic (IPS e.max press). Materials and methods: Two-body wear was investigated in custom made tooth wear brushing machine (60,000 cycles, 20 N and 60 cycle/min). The test specimens were divided into two groups, each group consisted of 8 ceramic specimens and 8 enamel cusp antagonists. Quantitative analysis of wear was carried out with subtractive weight loss of all specimens before and after wear test. Surface roughness measurements were evaluated before and after the wear test using a white light interference microscope. The data was collected and statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney (U) test. Results: Statically significant differences were found for two-body wear, with Vita Enamic samples show lower wear loss than IPS e.max press samples and cause less enamel wear loss. The Vita Enamic showed lower surface roughness and caused less surface roughness to enamel cusp antagonist than IPS e.max press samples. Conclusions: Vita Enamic revealed lower wear loss contributed by terms of weight loss and surface roughness change than IPS e.max press. IPS e.max press contributed to more surface roughness and wear loss of opposing enamel than Vita Enamic. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| CAD/CAM; Two-body wear; Tooth brushing wear; Surface roughness | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Mehta S.B., Banerji S., Millar B.J. and Suarez-Feito J.M. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 1. Assessment, treatment planning and strategies for the prevention and the passive management of tooth wear. British dent. J 2012; 212: 17-27. 2. Kim S.K., Kim K.N., Chang L.T. and Heo S. J. A study the effects of chewing pattern on occlusal wear. J of oral rehab. 2001; 28: 1048-1055. 3. Lambrechts, P., Braeme, M., Vuylsteke-Wauters, M., Vanherle, G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. Journal of Dental Research 1989; 68: 1752– 1754. 4. Lewis R. and Dwyer-Joyce R. Wear of human teeth a tribiological perspectives. J of Tribiological Engine. 2005; 219: 2-19. 5. Hahnel S., Schultz S., Trempler C., et. al. Two-body wear of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011; 4: 237-244. 6. Albakry M., Guazzato M., Swain M.V. Fracture Toughness and Hardness Evaluation of Three Pressable All-Ceramic Dental Materials. J of Dentistry 2003; 31(3): 181-188. 7. Vanoorbeek, S., Vandamme, K., Lijnen, I., Naert, I.,. Computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manuf- actured composite resin versus ceramic single-tooth restorations: a 3-year clinical study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 2010: 23 (3), 223–230. 8. Kelly, J.R., 2011. Article analysis and evaluation: Computer-Aided Designed/Computer-Assisted Manuf- actured (CAD/CAM) all- ceramic crowns appear to perform better than all-composite resin crowns following the first 3 years of placement. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 11, 203–205. 9. Ferracane,J.L.,2011.Resin composite—state of the art. Dental Materials 27,29–38. 10. Kelly R. Computer-Aided Designed/Computer-Assisted Manufactured (CAD/CAM) All-Ceramic Crowns Appear to Perform Better than All Composite Resin Crowns Following the First 3 Years of Placement. J of Evidence Based Dental Practice 2011; 11(4): 203-205. 11. Drik Osterman. High-tech material for chair side CAD/CAM: Vita Enamic. J of digital dental news, Jan/Feb 2013. 12. Heintzea S.D., Cavalleri A., Forjanica M., Zellwegera G., Roussonb V. Wear of ceramic and antagonist—A systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. J of dental materials 2 0 0 8; 2 4: 433–449. 13. Mormanna W. H., Stawarczyk B., Endera A., Senerc B., Attinc T., Mehla A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two- body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J o f mechan. Behave. Of biomedical materials. 2013; 20: 113-125. 14. Lin Wang A., Yihong Liu A., Wenjie Si B., Hailan Feng A., Yongqing Tao A., Zhizuo Mac. Friction and wear behaviors of dental ceramics against natural tooth enamel. J of the European Ceramic Society 2012; 32: 2599–2606. 15. Adriana Claudia. New resistance of pressable low fusing ceramic opposed by dental alloys. J of mechanical Behaviour Of biomedical material. 2014; 32: 46-51. 16. Elmaria A., Goldestien E. an evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J. of prosth. Dent. 2006; 96: 345-53. 17. Sulong M. and Aziz R. A. Wear of materials used in dentistry: A review of the literature. J of Prosth Dent.1990; 63: 342-349. 18. Suzuki S. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam. J Esthetic Restor. Dent. 2004; 16: 355-365. 19. Yip K., Smales R. and Kaidonis J. Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 350-356. 20. Al-Hiyasat A.S., Sanders S.W. investigation of human wear against four dental ceramic and gold. j. of dentistry. 1998;26: 487-499. 21. Imai Y., Suzuki S. and Fukushima S. Enamel wear of modified porcelains. Am J Dent. 2000; 13: 315-323. 22. Coppede A.R., Faria, A.C.L., Mattos, M.G.C., Rodrigues, R.C.S., Shibli, J.A., Ribeiro, R.F., 2013. Mechanical comparison of experimental conical-head abutment screws with abutment screw with conventional flat-head abutment screws for external-hex and internal tri-channel implant connections: an in vitro evaluation of loosening torque. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(6): 321-9. 23. Faria A. C., Oliveria A. A., Gomes E. A., Rodriges R. C., Ribeiro R. F. Wear resistance of pressable low fusing ceramic opposed by dental alloys. J of mech. Behav. Of biom. Materials. 2014; 32: 40-51. 24. Krejci I., Albert P., and Lutz F. The Influence of Antagonist Standardization on Wear. J of Dent Res 1999; 78(2): 713-719. 25. Anusavice K.J. Science of Dental Materials, 11th ed. Phillips, W.B. Saunders, St. 26. Al-Hiyasat A.S., Sanders S.W. investigation of human wear against four dental ceramic and gold. j. of dentistry. 1998;26: 487-499. 27. Heintze S.D. Corvallei A. wear of ceramic and antagonist a systemic evaluation influence factor in vitro. Dental material, 2008; 260: 1256-1261. 28. Kim M. J., Oh S. H., Kim J. H. et. al. Wear evaluation of human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J of dentistry. 2012; 40: 979-88. 29. Peng Z., Abd Elrahman M. E. Zhang Y., Yin L. Wear behavior of pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramic. J of Biomedical Materials Research: Applied Biomaterials. 2015; 40; 1032-40. 30. Andrea Coldea, Michel swain and Norbert F. mechanical proprieties of polymer infiltrated ceramic network material. J of Dent. Mater. 2013; 29: 419-26. 31. Preis V., Hannel S., Kolbeck C. et al. Wear Performance of Dental Materials: A Comparison of Substructure Ceramics, Veneering Ceramics, and Non- Precious Alloys. J of advanced biomaterials. 2011; 12; B432-B439. 32. Albashaireh z. Two-body wear of different ceramic materials opposed to zirconia ceramic. J of prosth. Dent. 2010; 104 (2): 105-13 33. Won-suck O.H., Ralph DeLong A., and Kenneth J. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: A literature review. J OF PROSTH. DENT. 2002; 48 (4): 451-59. 34. Metzelr K.T., Woddy R.D. in investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J. of prosth. Dent., 1999; 81: 356-64. 35. Alvaro Della Bona, Pedro H., Corrazzo. Y.U. Characterization of polymer infiltrated ceramic network material. J of Dent. Mater. 2014; 30 (5): 564-569. 36. Monmaturapoj N., Lawita P. and Thepsuwan W. Characterization and Properties of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics in the SiO2-Li2O-K2O-Al2O3 System for Dental Applications. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2013; 1-11. 37. Conrad H. J., Seong W. J. and Pesun, I. J. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosth. Dent. 2007; 98: 389-404. 38. Wang R. R., Lu C. L., Wang G., Zhang D. S. Influence of cyclic loading on the fracture toughness and load bearing capacities of all ceramic crowns. Int. JA of oral science. 2013; 6: 99-104. 39. Belli R., Genzier E., Muschweck A., Petschelt A., Lohbaue U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dental material j. 2014: 30 (4): 424-432. 40. Thornton I., Ruse N.D. Characterization of nanoceramic resin composite and lithium disilicate blocks for CAD/CAM. J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 898-902. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 335 PDF Download: 935 |
||
