A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of two different indirect composite resins with a ceramic material, opposed to human enamel

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the two-body wear resistance of two different indirect composites and lithium disilicate porcelain versus human enamel antagonists. Materials and Methods: Ten specimens of each material (BelleGlass NG, Kerr Corp.; SR Adoro, Ivoclar Vivadent AG; IPS e.max, Ivoclar Vivadent AG) were fabricated. Indirect dental composites and all-ceramic restoration were compared by an in vitro tribological test against human teeth antagonist. Wear loss of antagonist was calculated using an image analyzer (Leica) Wear behavior of restorative materials was investigated with a profilometer after each individual tribological test. A scanning microscope was used to examine the crystal morphology of the samples; the crystal phases were identified by an X-ray diffractometer. Microhardness test results were analyzed using ANOVA. Kruskal Wallis multi-comparison test was used for evaluating the corrosion data. In order to understand whether there is a relationship between mean friction co-efficients, wear rate, and hardness, the statistical non-parametric relation test was used. Results: The indirect composites showed lower wear rate and friction co-efficient than all-ceramic dental materials against enamel. As for the wear loss of the enamel antagonists, the all-ceramic restorations were more harmful to human teeth than the dental composites. Conclusion: Indirect dental composite is relatively more wear-friendly than all-ceramic restoration. Furthermore, indirect composites are favorable and less offensive. Therefore, the second generation of indirect composites is promising in long-life dental restorations.

Keywords

Hardness - electron microscopy - profilometry - two-body abrasion

Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

• References

• 1 Lutz F, Phillips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:480-8.
• 2 Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Fiber-reinforced composite crowns and FPDs: A clinical report. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:239-43.
• 3 Göhring TN, Gallo L, Lüthy H. Effect of water storage, thermocycling, the incorporation and site of placement of glass-fibers on the flexural strength of veneering composite. Dent Mater 2005;21:761-72.
• 4 Fujihara K, Teo K, Gopal R, Loh PL, Ganesh VK, Ramakrishna S, et al. Fibrous composite materials in dentistry and orthopedics: Review and applications. Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:775-88.
• 5 Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater 1998;14:51-6.
• 6 Li Y, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Effect of filler content and size on properties of composites. J Dent Res 1985;64:1396-401.
• 7 Rosentritt M, Behr M, Brückner H, Handel G. Composite veneering of metal based fixed partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:614-9.
• 8 Mazer RB, Leinfelder KF, Kawai K, Tsuchitani Y. Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. Dent Mater 1992;8:185-9.
• 9 Roulet JF. The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: A status report on posterior composites. J Dent 1988;16:101-13.
• 10 Mair LH. Wear in dentistry - Current terminology. J Dent 1992;20:140-4.
• 11 Lambrechts P, Debels E, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. How to simulate wear? Overview of existing methods. Dent Mater 2006;22:693-701.
• 12 Park J, Ozturk A. Tribological properties of MgO-CaO-SiO 2 -P 2 O 5 -F-based glass ceramic for dental applications. Mater Lett 2007;61:1916-21.
• 13 Park J, Ozturk A, You SH, Park SS, Bae WT, Shin DW. Effect of microstructure on the tribological properties of apatite-wollastonite glass ceramic. J Ceram Pro Res 2008;9:230-3.
• 14 Condon JR, Ferracane JL. In vitro wear of composite with varied cure, filler level, and filler treatment. J Dent Res 1997;76:1405-11.
• 15 Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, Bush PJ, Carter JM. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:386-95.
• 16 Kokubo T, Kushitani H, Sakka S, Kitsugi T, Yamamuro T. Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W. J Biomed Mater Res 1990;24:721-34.
• 17 Wen G, Zheng X, Song L. Effect of P 2 O 5 and sintering temperature on microstructure and mechanical properties of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. Acta Mater 2007;55:3583-91.
• 18 Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997;76:1508-16.
• 19 Jia J, Chen J, Zhou H, Hu L, Chen L. Comparative investigation on the wear and transfer behaviors of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites under dry sliding and water lubrication. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:1139-47.
• 20 Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials. Dent Mater 2006;22:1051-62.
• 21 St Germain H, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Properties of microfilled composite resins as influenced by filler content. J Dent Res 1985;64:155-60.
• 22 Torii Y, Itou K, Itota T, Hama K, Konishi N, Nagamine M, et al. Influence of filler content and gap dimension on wear resistance of resin composite luting cements around a CAD/CAM ceramic inlay restoration. Dent Mater J 1999;18:453-61.
• 23 Shortall AC, Hu XQ, Marquis PM. Potential countersample materials for in vitro simulation wear testing. Dent Mater 2002;18:246-54.
• 24 Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:214-20.
• 25 Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004;29:269-74.