IADR Abstract Archives
Sliding wear of glass-ionomer-cements
Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to compare the sliding wear resistance of different glass-ionomer-cements and one composite reference.
Methods: Specimens (see table, n=8 per group; 5mmx2mm) were prepared and polished according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Surface roughness was determined before wear testing using a profilometer (Perthometer SP6, Perthen-Feinprüf, G; LT=1.7/0.25, v= 0.1mm/s, 2µm diamond indenter). For checking the influence of fabrication temperature, two materials were fabricated at 25°C and at 37°C. For simulation of standardized wear, steatite balls (magnesium silicate, n=8; d=3mm, CeramTec, Plochingen, G) were used as antagonists. Specimens were loaded in a linear sliding wear process (loading: 250g, 120000 cycles, 40mm/s, linear lateral movement: 1mm, H20 dest. 25°C) without antagonist impact. After wear test, vertical substance loss [μm] of the different glass-ionomer-cements was determined using a 3D-Laser (KJ-3D-Laserscanning-Mikroscope, KEYENCE; J). Statistics: ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc, α=0.05.
Results: Wear varied between -100.8µm (Exp. GIC_25°) and -153.5µm (Equia Fil)(see table). Anova revealed significant (p=0.002) differences between the materials. Individual significant differences were found between exp. GIC_25° and Equia Fil (p=0.007) or Ketac Molar_25° (p=0.038) as well as Equia Fil and Tertic Evo Ceram (p=0.038). The fabrication with different temperatures showed no different results for Ketac Universal Aplicap, but for the experimental GIC.
Conclusions: The materials showed significantly different wear. Exp. GIC, Ketac Universal and Tetric Evo Ceram provided comparable improved wear resistance in comparison to Equia Fil and Ketac Molar Aplicap. Ketac Universal Aplicap showed temperature independent fabrication quality in comparison to the experimental GIC.
Methods: Specimens (see table, n=8 per group; 5mmx2mm) were prepared and polished according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Surface roughness was determined before wear testing using a profilometer (Perthometer SP6, Perthen-Feinprüf, G; LT=1.7/0.25, v= 0.1mm/s, 2µm diamond indenter). For checking the influence of fabrication temperature, two materials were fabricated at 25°C and at 37°C. For simulation of standardized wear, steatite balls (magnesium silicate, n=8; d=3mm, CeramTec, Plochingen, G) were used as antagonists. Specimens were loaded in a linear sliding wear process (loading: 250g, 120000 cycles, 40mm/s, linear lateral movement: 1mm, H20 dest. 25°C) without antagonist impact. After wear test, vertical substance loss [μm] of the different glass-ionomer-cements was determined using a 3D-Laser (KJ-3D-Laserscanning-Mikroscope, KEYENCE; J). Statistics: ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc, α=0.05.
Results: Wear varied between -100.8µm (Exp. GIC_25°) and -153.5µm (Equia Fil)(see table). Anova revealed significant (p=0.002) differences between the materials. Individual significant differences were found between exp. GIC_25° and Equia Fil (p=0.007) or Ketac Molar_25° (p=0.038) as well as Equia Fil and Tertic Evo Ceram (p=0.038). The fabrication with different temperatures showed no different results for Ketac Universal Aplicap, but for the experimental GIC.
Conclusions: The materials showed significantly different wear. Exp. GIC, Ketac Universal and Tetric Evo Ceram provided comparable improved wear resistance in comparison to Equia Fil and Ketac Molar Aplicap. Ketac Universal Aplicap showed temperature independent fabrication quality in comparison to the experimental GIC.