Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear simulation methods.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate two ceramic materials as possible substitutes for enamel using two wear simulation methods, and to compare both methods with regard to the wear results for different materials.


METHODS
Flat specimens (OHSU n=6, Ivoclar n=8) of one compomer and three composite materials (Dyract AP, Tetric Ceram, Z250, experimental composite) were fabricated and subjected to wear using two different wear testing methods and two pressable ceramic materials as stylus (Empress, experimental ceramic). For the OHSU method, enamel styli of the same dimensions as the ceramic stylus were fabricated additionally. Both wear testing methods differ with regard to loading force, lateral movement of stylus, stylus dimension, number of cycles, thermocycling and abrasive medium. In the OHSU method, the wear facets (mean vertical loss) were measured using a contact profilometer, while in the Ivoclar method (maximal vertical loss) a laser scanner was used for this purpose. Additionally, the vertical loss of the ceramic stylus was quantified for the Ivoclar method. The results obtained from each method were compared by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). To compare both wear methods, the log-transformed data were used to establish relative ranks between material/stylus combinations and assessed by applying the Pearson correlation coefficient.


RESULTS
The experimental ceramic material generated significantly less wear in Tetric Ceram and Z250 specimens compared to the Empress stylus in the Ivoclar method, whereas with the OHSU method, no difference between the two ceramic antagonists was found with regard to abrasion or attrition. The wear generated by the enamel stylus was not statistically different from that generated by the other two ceramic materials in the OHSU method. With the Ivoclar method, wear of the ceramic stylus was only statistically different when in contact with Tetric Ceram. There was a close correlation between the attrition wear of the OHSU and the wear of the Ivoclar method (Pearson coefficient 0.83, p=0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
Pressable ceramic materials can be used as a substitute for enamel in wear testing machines. However, material ranking may be affected by the type of ceramic material chosen. The attrition wear of the OHSU method was comparable with the wear generated with the Ivoclar method.
Heintze
S D
SD
Research & Development, In vitro-Research, Ivoclar Vivadent, Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein. siegward.heintze@ivoclarvivadent.com
Zellweger
G
G
Cavalleri
A
A
Ferracane
J
J
D000538:Aluminum Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry*; D020770:Compomers / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003743:Dental Enamel; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000737:chemistry; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear / Q000145:classification; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties
D000538:Aluminum Silicates; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; C088486:Dyract; C444701:Filtek Z250; C075815:IPS-Empress ceramic; C121818:Tetric ceram; D003776:Dental Porcelain