title: Comparison of two- and three-body wear of glass-ionomers and composites.
abstract: The two-body and three-body wear of glass-ionomers (GIC), visible light cured glass-ionomers (VLC-GIC), and composites were compared. The wear simulations were performed for the two-body wear in an artificial mouth and for the three-body wear with the so-called ACTA machine. The tested materials were different conventional glass-ionomers, light cured glass-ionomers, composites, and amalgam. The wear rates of 8 specimens of each material for the two-body and 16 for the three-body wear test were compared. After 10(5) cycles with each testing device, the wear shapes were measured. All measurements were related to the wear rate of amalgam. For the two-body wear method, the worn materials were qualitatively judged by scanning electron microscopy. The two different wear testing methods lead to similar results with slight differences in ranking. Amalgam showed the lowest wear rates with both methods. Photac Fil, a newly developed VLC-GIC, showed dramatically lower wear resistance than composites and conventional GIC with both methods. Further investigations are necessary to identify the material-specific parameters influencing the wear behaviour of a material in relation to different wear testing methods.
authors.affiliation: Polyclinic for Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. pelka@dent.uni-erlangen.de
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Pelka
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ebert
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Schneider
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Krämer
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Petschelt
mesh_terms: D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D000538:Aluminum Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D016722:Cermet Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003196:Computer Graphics; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000737:chemistry; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D008298:Maleates / Q000737:chemistry; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000295:instrumentation; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000737:chemistry; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000737:chemistry; D017640:Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
chemical_list: D000180:Acrylic Resins; D000538:Aluminum Silicates; C099129:Aqua Ionofil; D016722:Cermet Cements; D020770:Compomers; C029012:Composite Dental Resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; C088486:Dyract; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008298:Maleates; D008689:Methacrylates; C079764:Pertac hybrid; C081144:Photac-Fil; D011140:Polyurethanes; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D017640:Silicates; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C101680:Unicap dental cement; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C039733:Chemfil; C040964:Ketac-Fil; C072894:Valiant PhD