Materials · 2019 · 31 citations · 53 references
DentistryDental Materials ScienceMaterials ScienceCeramic MaterialsCeramicsDental MaterialsCeramic BiomaterialsCeramic RestorationsComposite ResinsDental CeramicsDental CompositesWear ResistanceCad And Cam Dental CeramicsCad And Cam Dental MaterialsCeramic Dental MaterialsCeramic Restorative MaterialsCeramic Wear MaterialsWearWear Of Ceramic RestorationsZirconia
The aim of this study was to evaluate the wear properties of opposed dental ceramic restorative CAD/CAM materials and several posterior direct restorative composite resins. Three kinds of dental ceramics CAD/CAM materials (monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, leucite) and four dental composite resins—that is, MI Gracefil, Gradia Direct P, Estelite Σ Quick, and Filtek Supreme Ultra—were used in this study. For each of the 12 groups (three ceramics × four composite resins), five each of a canine-shaped ceramic specimen and a cuboidal shape opposing composite resin were prepared. All of the specimens were tested in a thermomechanical loading machine (50 N, 100,000 cycles, 5/55 °C). Wear losses of ceramic specimens and composite resin specimens were evaluated using a three-dimensional profiling system and an electronic scale, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni’s correction. Zirconia showed significantly less volumetric loss than lithium disilicate or leucite regardless of composite resin type (p > 0.05/3 = 0.017), and that Estelite Σ Quick showed significantly more weight loss than Filtek Supreme Ultra, MI Gracefil, or Gradia Direct P regardless of ceramic type (p > 0.05/6 = 0.083). Zirconia showed less volumetric loss than lithium disilicate or leucite. Some composite resins opposing ceramics showed considerable weight loss.
53
Quantitative in vivo Wear of Human Enamel
Paul Lambrechts, M. Braem, M. Vuylsteke-Wauters et al. · Journal of Dental Research · 1989 · 439 citations