In vitro wear of nano-composite denture teeth.

PURPOSE Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device. MATERIAL AND METHODS Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001). CONCLUSION The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.

[1]  J. Nicholls,et al.  Shock-absorbing behavior of five restorative materials used on implants. , 1991, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[2]  J. V. von Fraunhofer,et al.  Wear characteristics of high-strength denture teeth. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  K. Leinfelder,et al.  In vitro wear device for determining posterior composite wear. , 1999, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[4]  A. Shiba,et al.  Adhesive bonding of denture base resins to plastic denture teeth. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  S. Winkler,et al.  Laboratory wear investigation of resin posterior denture teeth. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  M. Morikawa,et al.  Wear of artificial denture teeth by use of toothbrushes. Part 1: Abrasive wear of anterior teeth. , 1990, The Journal of Nihon University School of Dentistry.

[7]  J. Osborne,et al.  Pre-clinical screening for wear of posterior composite resins. , 1996, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[8]  W H Gilmour,et al.  Investigation of human enamel wear against four dental ceramics and gold. , 1998, Journal of dentistry.

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

[10]  K. Kawai,et al.  Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. , 1995, American journal of dentistry.

[11]  G. Geerts,et al.  Comparison of the clinical abrasion resistance of six commercially available denture teeth. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  Y. Shirasaki,et al.  Dynamic viscoelastic properties of models composed of posterior denture teeth and denture base resin. , 1998, Journal of medical and dental sciences.

[13]  E. Davis,et al.  Clinical wear study of three commercially available artificial tooth materials: thirty-six month results. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  K. Leinfelder,et al.  An in vitro evaluation of a copolymerizable type of microfilled composite resin. , 1994, Quintessence international.

[15]  C. Hacker,et al.  In vitro wear of resin denture teeth. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  An in vitro wear study of posterior denture tooth materials on human enamel. , 2001, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

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

[18]  K. Hiranuma,et al.  [Properties of experimental high abrasion resistance plastic teeth]. , 1990, Aichi Gakuin Daigaku Shigakkai shi.

[19]  F. Kawano,et al.  Shock absorbability and hardness of commercially available denture teeth. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[20]  A. Shiba,et al.  Impact resistance of highly crosslinked plastic denture teeth. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[21]  E. Nagai,et al.  Wear of denture teeth by use of metal plates. Part 2: Abrasive wear of posterior teeth. , 1992, The Journal of Nihon University School of Dentistry.

[22]  W. Douglas,et al.  Wear rates of artificial denture teeth opposed by natural dentition. , 1993, The Journal of clinical dentistry.

[23]  Leinfelder Kf,et al.  An in vitro device for predicting clinical wear. , 1989 .

[24]  W. Douglas,et al.  In vitro study of the wear characteristics of natural and artificial teeth. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[25]  Y. Sato,et al.  An in vitro study of high-strength resin posterior denture tooth wear. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[26]  M E Razzoog,et al.  An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold in saliva. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.