A Comparative Evaluation of Wear of Enamel to Various Restorative Materials of Different Surface Finishes-An In Vitro Study
Aim:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface finish of various restorative materials on the wear of opposing enamel.Objectives of the study:1.To compare the amount of enamel loss in experimental groups of various restorative materials at different intervals of masticatory cycles. 2.To compare and evaluate the most compatible finished or polished surface of the restorative material causing least enamel wear. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 samples were prepared for this study - 75 in disc form and 15 enamel antagonist and divided into 6 groups. Group 1 - Enamel vs Enamel antagonist, Group 2 - Enamel vs Fiber Reinforced Composite disc, Group 3 Enamel vs Autoglazed metal ceramic disc , Group 4 - Enamel vs Overglazed metal ceramic disc, Group 5 - Enamel vs Polished metal ceramic disc by polishing kit, and Group 6 - Enamel vs PEEK disc were fabricated. 105 extracted premolars were collected and randomly divided into six groups of 15 each and 15 for enamel antagonist. Each tooth sample was weighed before wear testing using electronic analytical balance of 0.0001 g accuracy. Occlusal surfaces of these teeth were then abraded against the substrates in a wear machine for a total of 10,000 cycles. Each tooth sample was weighed after 5000 cycles and after the total of 10,000 cycles, respectively, using the same balance. Differences in weight of tooth samples before and after wear testing were evaluated statistically using One-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests was used. Results: The values obtained for overall mean percentage weight loss after 10000 rotations in increasing order is observed: Group 1 (Enamel Vs Enamel 0.0043 ± 0.00) < Group 6 (Enamel Vs PEEK disc 00.0131 ± 0.01) < Group 2 (Enamel Vs Fiber reinforced composite 0.0258 ± 0.01) < Group 5 (Enamel Vs Polished metal ceramic disc 0.0294 ± 0.00) < Group 3 (Enamel Vs Autoglazed metal ceramic disc 0.0318 ± 0.01) < Group 4 (Enamel Vs Overglazed ceramic disc 0.0451 ± 0.01). Conclusion:PEEK showed the least amount of enamel wear followed by Fiber reinforced composite. Fiber reinforced composite may cause less wear than dental ceramics. Enamel wear produced by polished metal ceramic disc is substantially less than autoglazed and over glazed metal ceramic disc. This study indicates that any potential damage to ceramic can directly affect enamel and suggests that porcelain should be polished instead of over glazed.
Key Words: Fiber reinforced composite, Autoglazed, Overglazed, Polished surface, Wear, PEEK.
2. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 1987; 12:53‑78.
3. Mahalick JA, Knap FJ, Weiter EJ. Occusal wear in prosthodontics. J AmDent Assoc 1971; 82:154‑9.
4. Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res 1991; 70:221‑5.
5. Terry J. Lindquist, Robert E. Ogle, L. Davis, Twelve-month results of a clinical wear study of three artificial tooth materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1995; 74:157-61.
6. Okeson JP. Management of Temporo-mandibular Disorders and Occlusion. St. Louis: Mosby; 1989; p. 259‑60.
7. Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 2006; 22:712‑34.
8. D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, Pirani M, Vadini M, Gattone M, & De Angelis F. Wear properties of a novel resin composite compared to human enamel and other restorative materials Operative Dentistry 2014; 39(6) 612-618.
9. D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, & De Angelis F. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2015; 115(3) 350-355.
10. Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, & Hittelman EL. An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2006; 96 (5) 345-353.
11. Hacker CH, Wagner WC, & Razzoog ME. An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold in saliva Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1996; 75(1) 14-17.
12. Wiley MG. Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1989; 61(2) 133-137.
13. Silva NR, Thompson VP, Valverde GB, Coelho PG, Powers JM, Farah JW, & Esquivel-Upshaw J. Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate restorations in vitro and in vivo Journal of the American Dental Association 2011; 142 :4-9.
14. Etman MK, Woolford M, & Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: In vivo study International Journal of Prosthodontics 2008; 21(3) 245-252.
15. Heintze SD, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA, & Rousson V. Round robin test: Wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators-Supplement to the round robin test of 2005 .Dental Materials 2011; 27(2).
16. Sulong M, Aziz RA. Wear of materials used in dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63:342–349.
17. Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:320 3.
18. Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, Hittelman EL. An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold . J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96 (5):345-53.
19. Gauri M, Ramandeep D, Murtuza B. An evaluation of wear of human enamel opposed by ceramics of different surface finishes. JIPS 2015; 15:2:111-18.
20. Shabanian M1, Richards LC.In vitro wear rates of materials under different loads and varying pH. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jun; 87(6):650-6.
21. Ranjitkar S, Grant T. An in vitro assessment of the effect of load and pH on wear between opposing enamel and dentine surfaces. Archives of Oral Biology 2008:53: 11, 1011-1016.
22. Li H, Zhou Z. Wear behaviour of human teeth in dry and artificial saliva conditions. Wear 2002; 249:980 4.
23. Slack, F.A., Jr. A preliminary method of testing abrasion hardness. JADA 39:47 July 1949.
24. Cornell, J.A., and others. A method of comparing the wear resistance of various materials used for artificial teeth. JADA 54:608 May 1957.
25. Hutchings, Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials. London: Butterworth Heinemann Ltd.; 1992.
26. Wimmer T, Stawarczyk B. Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/ CAM resincomposite and PMMA: Effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-upconfiguration. Dental material 2016; 32:6:127-136.
27. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials.
28. Gediminas S, Agne D, Gabrielė S, Juozas Z. A review of PEEK polymer’s properties and its use in Prosthodontics. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal 2017; 19:19-23.
29. Stawarczyk B, O zcan M, Trottmann A, Schmutz F, Roos M, & Ha¨mmerle C. Two-body wear rate of CAD/ CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2013; 109(5) 325-332.
30. Sripetchdanond J, & Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: An in vitro study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2014; 112(5) 1141-1150.
31. Suzuki S, & Leinfelder KF .Wear of enamel cusps opposed by posterior composite resin Quintessence International 1993.24(12) 885-890.
32. Shimane T, Endo K, Zheng JH, Yanagi T, & Ohno H.Wear of opposing teeth by posterior composite resins—Evaluation of newly developed wear test methods Dental Materials Journal 2010. 29(6) 713-720.
33. Brewer JD, Garlapo DA, Chipps EA, Tedesco LA. Clinical discrimination between auto glazed and polished porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:631-4
34. Monasky GE, Taylor DF. Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25:299 306.
35. Wiley MG. Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth.J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:133 7.
36. Brewer JD, Garlapo DA, Chipps EA, Tedesco LA. Clinical discrimination between auto glazed and polished porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:631-4
37. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL. Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69: 425-30.
38. McLean JW. The science and art of dental ceramics. Vol I. Chicago: Quintessence; 1979. p. 29, 51-7.