6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Wear Characteristics of Dental Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Opposing Various Dental Composite Resins

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to evaluate the wear properties of opposed dental ceramic restorative CAD/CAM materials and several posterior direct restorative composite resins. Three kinds of dental ceramics CAD/CAM materials (monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, leucite) and four dental composite resins—that is, MI Gracefil, Gradia Direct P, Estelite Σ Quick, and Filtek Supreme Ultra—were used in this study. For each of the 12 groups (three ceramics × four composite resins), five each of a canine-shaped ceramic specimen and a cuboidal shape opposing composite resin were prepared. All of the specimens were tested in a thermomechanical loading machine (50 N, 100,000 cycles, 5/55 °C). Wear losses of ceramic specimens and composite resin specimens were evaluated using a three-dimensional profiling system and an electronic scale, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni’s correction. Zirconia showed significantly less volumetric loss than lithium disilicate or leucite regardless of composite resin type ( p > 0.05/3 = 0.017), and that Estelite Σ Quick showed significantly more weight loss than Filtek Supreme Ultra, MI Gracefil, or Gradia Direct P regardless of ceramic type ( p > 0.05/6 = 0.083). Zirconia showed less volumetric loss than lithium disilicate or leucite. Some composite resins opposing ceramics showed considerable weight loss.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness.

          This study determined the two-body wear and toothbrushing wear parameters, including gloss and roughness measurements and additionally Martens hardness, of nine aesthetic CAD/CAM materials, one direct resin-based nanocomposite plus that of human enamel as a control group. Two-body wear was investigated in a computer-controlled chewing simulator (1.2 million loadings, 49N at 1.7Hz; 3000 thermocycles 5/50°C). Each of the 11 groups consisted of 12 specimens and 12 enamel antagonists. Quantitative analysis of wear was carried out with a 3D-surface analyser. Gloss and roughness measurements were evaluated using a glossmeter and an inductive surface profilometer before and after abrasive toothbrushing of machine-polished specimens. Additionally Martens hardness was measured. Statistically significant differences were calculated with one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance). Statistically significant differences were found for two-body wear, gloss, surface roughness and hardness. Zirconium dioxide ceramics showed no material wear and low wear of the enamel antagonist. Two-body wear of CAD/CAM-silicate and -lithium disilicate ceramics, -hybrid ceramics and -nanocomposite as well as direct nanocomposite did not differ significantly from that of human enamel. Temporary polymers showed significantly higher material wear than permanent materials. Abrasive toothbrushing significantly reduced gloss and increased roughness of all materials except zirconium dioxide ceramics. Gloss retention was highest with zirconium dioxide ceramics, silicate ceramics, hybrid ceramics and nanocomposites. Temporary polymers showed least gloss retention. Martens hardness differed significantly among ceramics, between ceramics and composites, and between resin composites and acrylic block materials as well. All permanent aesthetic CAD/CAM block materials tested behave similarly or better with respect to two-body wear and toothbrushing wear than human enamel, which is not true for temporary polymer CAD/CAM block materials. Ceramics show the best gloss retention compared to hybrid ceramics, composites and acrylic polymers. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop.

            The purpose of this workshop was to bring together a tribologist (T.A.S.), a clinician (L.H.M) and a dental materials scientist (R.W.V) to discuss the fundamental mechanisms of wear and how these relate to the manifestations and measurement of wear in dentistry. Eighty delegates contributed to a valuable discussion led by the workshop chairman (C.H.L.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict?

              The objective of this manuscript is to address the following questions: Why do direct dental composite restorative materials fail clinically? What tests may be appropriate for predicting clinical performance? Does in vitro testing correlate with clinical performance?
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Materials (Basel)
                Materials (Basel)
                materials
                Materials
                MDPI
                1996-1944
                06 June 2019
                June 2019
                : 12
                : 11
                Affiliations
                Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, BK21 PLUS Project, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea; vvvora722@ 123456gmail.com (B.G.); 0228dmqls@ 123456hanmail.net (E.-B.B.); ljju1112@ 123456hanmail.net (J.-J.L.); joonetak@ 123456hanmail.net (W.-T.C.); h.02@ 123456daum.net (H.-Y.B.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: won9180@ 123456hanmail.net (J.-W.C.); neoplasia96@ 123456hanmail.net (J.-B.H.); Tel.: +82-10-2906-3223 (J.-W.C.); +82-10-8007-9099 (J.-B.H.); Fax: +82-55-360-5134 (J.-W.C. & J.-B.H.)
                Article
                materials-12-01839
                10.3390/ma12111839
                6600963
                31174298
                baa719b2-57e7-4591-858b-963b75b08150
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article