IADR Abstract Archives
Quantitative Wear Analysis: Enamel, Composite And Zirconia Against Steatite Antagonist
Objectives: Advances in the field of biomaterials has resulted in a broad range of dental restoratives with differing compositions and properties. This study examined wear behavior of resin composite (Lava Ultimate-LU), polished zirconia (Lava Plus-LP) and natural enamel against a standardized antagonist by performing comparative 3D analysis of relative volume loss.
Methods: Standardized mandibular first-molars were produced from 2 materials (n= 6): polished zirconia and resin composite, along with human 3rd molars. Crowns were subjected to chewing simulation by a spherical steatite antagonist (r = 3mm) using a mouth-motion fatigue machine. Steatite has properties in the mid-range of dental restorative materials. Antagonist slid down the cusp toward central fossa, applying 200-N load for 1.25 million cycles at ~2 Hz in water. Optical and SEM images were taken for qualitative analysis of surface damage in crowns and steatite antagonists. Volume loss in crowns and steatite antagonists was quantified with 3D images obtained by microCT and comparative analysis done using 3D software.
Results: In composite crowns, the average loss of volume was 0.052 ± 0.009 mm3, ranging from 0.033-0.059 mm3, while steatite antagonist suffered no visible loss of volume. In natural teeth, wear craters presented wide variations in size, either restricted to the slope of the cusp or wearing away at the cusp tip. Results of volumetric analysis of molars reflect those variations, mean volume loss being 0.204 ± 0.107 mm3, ranging from 0.434 - 0.048 mm3. The steatite antagonist against enamel demonstrated no visible loss of volume. Finally, polished zirconia crowns revealed no visible loss of volume, instead causing wear of the steatite antagonist, 0.022 ± 0.006 mm3, ranging from 0.011-0.031 mm3.
Conclusions: In oral cavity, polished zirconia crowns would be highly wear resistant, however could cause antagonist wear. Composites and enamel, however, may suffer some volume loss but preserve the antagonist.
Methods: Standardized mandibular first-molars were produced from 2 materials (n= 6): polished zirconia and resin composite, along with human 3rd molars. Crowns were subjected to chewing simulation by a spherical steatite antagonist (r = 3mm) using a mouth-motion fatigue machine. Steatite has properties in the mid-range of dental restorative materials. Antagonist slid down the cusp toward central fossa, applying 200-N load for 1.25 million cycles at ~2 Hz in water. Optical and SEM images were taken for qualitative analysis of surface damage in crowns and steatite antagonists. Volume loss in crowns and steatite antagonists was quantified with 3D images obtained by microCT and comparative analysis done using 3D software.
Results: In composite crowns, the average loss of volume was 0.052 ± 0.009 mm3, ranging from 0.033-0.059 mm3, while steatite antagonist suffered no visible loss of volume. In natural teeth, wear craters presented wide variations in size, either restricted to the slope of the cusp or wearing away at the cusp tip. Results of volumetric analysis of molars reflect those variations, mean volume loss being 0.204 ± 0.107 mm3, ranging from 0.434 - 0.048 mm3. The steatite antagonist against enamel demonstrated no visible loss of volume. Finally, polished zirconia crowns revealed no visible loss of volume, instead causing wear of the steatite antagonist, 0.022 ± 0.006 mm3, ranging from 0.011-0.031 mm3.
Conclusions: In oral cavity, polished zirconia crowns would be highly wear resistant, however could cause antagonist wear. Composites and enamel, however, may suffer some volume loss but preserve the antagonist.