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

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.

[1]  R. Bryant.  Comparison of three standards for quantifying occlusal loss of composite restorations. , 1990, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  R. G. Chadwick.  Thermocycling--the effects upon the compressive strength and abrasion resistance of three composite resins. , 1994, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[3]  J. McCool,et al.  Fatigue of restorative materials. , 2001, Critical reviews in oral biology and medicine : an official publication of the American Association of Oral Biologists.

[4]  J L Ferracane,et al.  In vitro Wear of Composite with Varied Cure, Filler Level, and Filler Treatment , 1997, Journal of dental research.

[5]  Shiro Suzuki,et al.  In vitro wear of indirect composite restoratives. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  I. Krejci,et al.  The Influence of Antagonist Standardization on Wear , 1999, Journal of dental research.

[7]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Wear and Marginal Breakdown of Composites with Various Degrees of Cure , 1997, Journal of dental research.

[8]  R Hickel,et al.  A New Optical 3-D Device for the Detection of Wear , 1997, Journal of dental research.

[9]  E Asmussen,et al.  The effect of postcuring on quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties, and in vitro wear of two resin composites. , 2000, Journal of dentistry.

[10]  R. Kerby,et al.  Two-body wear resistance and degree of conversion of laboratory-processed composite materials. , 1999, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  J L Ferracane,et al.  Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. , 1996, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[12]  T. Stolarski,et al.  Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. , 1996, Journal of dentistry.

[13]  J. McCabe,et al.  Two-and three-body wear of dental restorative materials , 2002 .

[14]  C H Gibbs,et al.  Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  A. Petschelt,et al.  Comparison of two- and three-body wear of glass-ionomers and composites. , 1996, European journal of oral sciences.

[16]  S Włoch,et al.  Evaluation of wear of selected prosthetic materials in contact with enamel and dentin. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  J. M. Powell,et al.  In Vitro Wear Response of Composite Resin, Amalgam, and Enamel , 1975, Journal of dental research.

[18]  I. Krejci,et al.  Effect of Contact Area Size on Enamel and Composite Wear , 1992, Journal of dental research.

[19]  F. Barbakow,et al.  Chewing Pressure us. Wear of Composites and Opposing Enamel Cusps , 1992, Journal of dental research.

[20]  D. Koth,et al.  Evaluation of wear: enamel opposing three ceramic materials and a gold alloy. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  C H Gibbs,et al.  Chewing movements in relation to border movements at the first molar. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  P. Pallav,et al.  Occlusal wear simulation with the ACTA wear machine. , 1994, Journal of dentistry.

[23]  M. Vargas,et al.  The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. , 2000, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[24]  R. Wassell,et al.  Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. , 1994, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[25]  M Bergman,et al.  Hydrolytic Degradation of Dental Composites , 1984, Journal of dental research.

[26]  S. Teoh,et al.  Influence of thermal cycling on OCA wear of composite restoratives. , 2001, Operative dentistry.

[27]  W. Douglas,et al.  Measurement of change in surface contour by computer graphics. , 1985, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[28]  P. Schmidlin,et al.  Attritional wear and abrasive surface alterations of composite resin materials in vitro. , 2002, Journal of dentistry.

[29]  G. Lewis.  Predictors of clinical wear of restorative dental composite materials. , 1993, Bio-medical materials and engineering.

[30]  J. Roulet.  Degradation of Dental Polymers , 1986 .

[31]  P. Marquis,et al.  Potential countersample materials for in vitro simulation wear testing. , 2002, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[32]  I. Krejci,et al.  Mesio-occlusodistal amalgam restorations: quantitative in vivo data up to 4 years. A data base for the development of amalgam substitutes. , 1994, Quintessence international.

[33]  K. Leinfelder,et al.  How heat treatment and thermal cycling affect wear of composite resin inlays. , 1994, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[34]  T. Reich,et al.  In-vitro-Testverfahren zur Evaluation dentaler Restaurationssysteme. 1. Computergesteuerter Kausimulator , 1990 .

[35]  M. Tyas.  Correlation between fracture properties and clinical performance of composite resins in Class IV cavities. , 1990, Australian dental journal.

[36]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Mechanical properties and filler fraction of dental composites. , 1989, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[37]  P. Pallav,et al.  Wear rates of composites, an amalgam, and enamel under stress-bearing conditions. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[38]  R Perry,et al.  Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer. , 2000, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[39]  K. Söderholm,et al.  Filler particle leachability of experimental dental composites. , 2000, European journal of oral sciences.

[40]  Y. Sato,et al.  Hardness and fracture toughness of four commercial visible light-cured composite resin veneering materials. , 1995, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[41]  R. Hickel,et al.  Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. , 2000, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[42]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Factors effecting dental composite wear in vitro. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[43]  R. Wassell,et al.  A Two-body Frictional Wear Test , 1994, Journal of dental research.