Abstract Archives

IADR Abstract Archives

Wear of Ceramics and Enamel in Artificial Chewing Simulator

Objective:  To measure and compare the wear of human enamel against adjusted; adjusted and polished; adjusted, polished and glazed zirconia and lithium di-silicate and the wear of each ceramic.

 Methods:  The study (n=8) included three groups of lithium di-silicate (e.max), three groups of zirconia (Lava), a veneering porcelain (Ceramco 3), and enamel (control). Molar cusps were standardized with a tapered diamond (Brasseler/USA), leaving their cusp tips unaltered and were mounted into holders with acrylic resin. The ceramic specimens were scanned to determine surface roughness (Ra) and then load cycled in the UAB-chewing simulator (10N vertical load/2mm slide/20cycles/min) with a flow of artificial saliva (33.3% glycerin/66.6 % water) for 400,000 cycles. PVS impressions (3M ESPE/USA) of each opposing enamel cusp were taken at baseline and 400,000 cycles and poured with vacuum mixed die stone (WhipMix/USA). The stone models were separated and scanned using a 3D non-contact surface profilometer (Proscan 2000/UK). Scans from baseline and 400,000 load cycles were super-imposed (Proform/UK) to determine ceramic and opposing enamel wear. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc tests (p=0.05).

Results: Groups with different letter in a column are statistically different (p<0.05).  Ceramco 3 produced significantly greater enamel wear than all other groups (p<.05). 

Group

Opposing enamel loss (mm3)

Ceramic volume loss (mm3)

Original roughness (µm)

Adjusted e.max

0.53±0.2A,B

0.42±0.21A

1.68±0.36

Adjusted & polished e.max

0.36±0.09A

0.39±0.16A

0.56±0.14

Adjusted, Polished, & glazed e.max

0.47±0.15A,B

0.47±0.15A

0.91±0.21

Adjusted lava

0.54±0.18A,B

undetectable

2.73±1.49

Adjusted & polished lava

0.33±0.11A

undetectable

1.11±0.26

Adjusted, polished, & glazed Lava

0.68±0.20B

0.57±0.13A

0.82±0.24

Ceramco 3

2.15±0.58C

1.29±0.18B

1.57±0.15

Enamel

0.45±0.12A,B

0.42±0.11A

2.63±1.14

Conclusion:   Lava and e.max produced clinically acceptable wear on opposing enamel compared to the enamel to enamel wear.  These materials seem to be kinder to the opposing enamel than veneering porcelains.

Supported in part by a grant from NIDCR-DART32DE017601/T90DE022736.


Division: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting: 2013 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Seattle, Washington)
Location: Seattle, Washington
Year: 2013
Final Presentation ID: 1902
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 3: Ceramic-based Materials and Cements
Authors
  • Syklawer, Sarah  ( University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA )
  • Janyavula, Sridhar  ( School of Dentistry- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA )
  • Beck, Preston  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA )
  • Cakir, Deniz  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA )
  • Ramp, Lance C.  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA )
  • Mclaren, Edward  ( UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, USA )
  • Burgess, John  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA )
    • SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Fracture, Fatigue, and Wear of Ceramics and Glass-ceramics
    03/22/2013