A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials

被引:67
作者
Heintze, S. D.
Cavalleri, A.
Forjanic, M.
Zellweger, G.
Rousson, V.
机构
[1] Ivoclar Vivadent AG, R&D, In Vitro Lab, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein
[2] Univ Zurich, Dept Biostat, Inst Social & Prevent Med, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
wear; in vitro; profilometry; laser; wear simulator; optical sensor;
D O I
10.1016/j.dental.2005.08.010
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective. Different approaches are utilized to quantify the wear generated on flat specimens with a wear simulator. However, there are no systematic studies comparing different wear quantification methods with a series of materials that exhibit different wear rates. Methods. Sixteen restorative materials, including 14 composites (BelleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Esthet-X, Four Seasons, Heliomolar RO, Heliomolar HB, Herculite XRV, InTen-S, Point 4, SureFil, Targis cured at 95 and 130 degrees C, Tetric Ceram) as well as an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (Empress) material, were subjected to attrition wear against standardized Empress antagonists in the Willytec wear simulator (120,000 cycles, 5 kg, 1.6 Hz). The volume and maximal vertical loss were quantified directly on the specimens with a profilometry device (Perthometer) and the FRT MicroProf optical sensor. After the fabrication of plaster replicas, the loss was also determined with a 3D laser scanning device. For the statistical analysis, the data were subjected to a logarithmic transformation. Intraclass correlation was calculated to measure the agreement among all three methods, while limits of agreement were used to compare one method against another. Results. There was a very good agreement between all three quantification methods for both volume and vertical loss. The mechanical sensor measured consistently higher values compared to the optical sensors for the volume loss (correction factor 0.95), whereas for the vertical loss, consistently lower values were obtained (correction factor 1.17). However, the ranking of the materials was only marginally influenced by the quantification method. Significance. All three sensors are suitable for the quantification of wear facets. Due to speed and simplicity, the laser sensor has greater advantages over the two other sensors. (C) 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1051 / 1062
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], DEGRADATION DENT POL
[2]  
Bayne S C, 1992, Adv Dent Res, V6, P65
[3]  
BEVENIUS J, 1991, SCANNING MICROSCOPY, V5, P731
[4]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[5]   Predictors of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders: a 20-year follow-up study from childhood to adulthood [J].
Carlsson, GE ;
Egermark, I ;
Magnusson, T .
ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2002, 60 (03) :180-185
[6]  
CHRISTENSEN R, 1990, J DENT RES, V69, P126
[7]  
DeLong R, 1985, Dent Mater, V1, P27, DOI 10.1016/S0109-5641(85)80061-0
[8]  
*DIN, 2000, LANG, V1
[9]  
Heintze SD, 2005, OPER DENT, V30, P617
[10]  
Heintze SD, 2005, J ADHES DENT, V7, P95