Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators-results of a round robin test


Heintze, S D; Zappini, G; Rousson, V (2005). Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators-results of a round robin test. Dental Materials, 21(4):304-317.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to prove the hypothesis that different wear measurement methods generate different material rankings. METHODS: Ten restorative materials, eight composites (BelleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar RO, SureFil, Targis cured at 95 and 130 degrees C, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (Empress) have been evaluated with regard to the wear with five different wear methods (IVOCLAR, ZURICH, MUNICH, OHSU, ACTA). Every center received specimens, which Ivoclar Vivadent had made using the same batch. The test centers did not know which brand they were testing. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test center, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. RESULTS: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centers. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA and IVOCLAR the highest. Materialwise, the best global performance was achieved by Empress, which was clearly ahead of BelleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar RO, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by BelleGlass and SureFil, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar RO was poor. SIGNIFICANCE: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to prove the hypothesis that different wear measurement methods generate different material rankings. METHODS: Ten restorative materials, eight composites (BelleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar RO, SureFil, Targis cured at 95 and 130 degrees C, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (Empress) have been evaluated with regard to the wear with five different wear methods (IVOCLAR, ZURICH, MUNICH, OHSU, ACTA). Every center received specimens, which Ivoclar Vivadent had made using the same batch. The test centers did not know which brand they were testing. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test center, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. RESULTS: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centers. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA and IVOCLAR the highest. Materialwise, the best global performance was achieved by Empress, which was clearly ahead of BelleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar RO, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by BelleGlass and SureFil, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar RO was poor. SIGNIFICANCE: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

Statistics

Citations

72 citations in Web of Science®
75 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 15 Jun 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:2005
Deposited On:15 Jun 2009 09:02
Last Modified:06 Dec 2017 19:58
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0109-5641
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.003
PubMed ID:15766577

Download