Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM When porcelain surfaces oppose gold and composite resin restorations as well as enamel, wear resistance and abrasiveness of the porcelain are clinical concerns to maintain the occlusal relationship. However, there is limited information on comparison of mutual wear rates when these materials oppose in 2-body and 3-body conditions. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate mutual wear rates of dental porcelain and opposing materials, including a gold alloy, a composite resin, and human enamel, using an in vitro wear test. MATERIAL AND METHODS Mutual wear between high-fusing dental porcelain (Ceramco II) disks (9 x 5-mm thick) with a rough or smooth surface and opposing styli made of gold alloy, composite resin, or human enamel was evaluated in 2-body and 3-body conditions using a wear simulator (n=8). Wear depths (microm) of porcelain disks were determined using a profilometer. Wear depths (microm) of the opposing materials were obtained by converting the worn surface areas into wear depths using image-analysis software. All data were statistically analyzed by 3-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni-Dunn test (alpha=.05). The worn surfaces were observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). RESULTS The wear values for porcelain opposing composite resin or enamel in the 2-body condition were significantly greater than those in the 3-body condition, regardless of the surface condition of the porcelain (P<.001). For stylus specimens, all values in the 2-body condition were significantly greater than those in the 3-body condition, regardless of the surface condition of the opposing porcelain (P<.001). These results are supported by SEM observations of worn surfaces. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that mutual wear rates, when porcelain opposes gold, composite resin, and enamel, are influenced by 2-body and 3-body wear conditions.

[1]  Won-Suck Oh,et al.  Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  M. Wiley Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  F. Kawano,et al.  Effect of leucite crystals on the strength of glassy porcelain. , 1994, Dental materials journal.

[4]  P Derand,et al.  Wear of low-fusing dental porcelains. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  D F Taylor,et al.  Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. , 1971, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  S. Suzuki,et al.  Enamel wear of modified porcelains. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.

[7]  J W McLean,et al.  The science and art of dental ceramics. , 1991, Operative dentistry.

[8]  W. Proffit,et al.  Occlusal Forces in Normal- and Long-face Adults , 1983, Journal of dental research.

[9]  R. Smales,et al.  Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications. , 2004, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[10]  R. G. Craig Restorative dental materials , 1971 .

[11]  K. Leinfelder,et al.  Wear of enamel cusps opposed by posterior composite resin. , 1993, Quintessence international.

[12]  I. Krejci,et al.  Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

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

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

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

[16]  C. Cox,et al.  Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel. , 1996, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[17]  G Oilo,et al.  Wear of prosthodontic materials--an in vivo study. , 1990, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[18]  M. Kapczinski,et al.  Effect of glazed and polished surface finishes on the friction coefficient of two low-fusing ceramics. , 2005, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  J. Mclean Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  Shiro Suzuki Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam? , 2004, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[21]  G. Oilo,et al.  In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. , 1994, Quintessence international.

[22]  G. M. Smith,et al.  Three-body wear associated with three ceramics and enamel. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.