Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Heintze, S D; Cavalleri, A; Forjanic, M; Zellweger, G; Rousson, V (2006). A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials. Dental Materials, 22(11):1051-1062.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Statistics

Citations

34 citations in Web of Science®
42 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 15 May 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Date:2006
Deposited On:15 May 2009 15:15
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:13
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0109-5641
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.08.010
PubMed ID:16386293

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations