Friction and wear behavior of dental feldspathic porcelain

Abstract The friction and wear behavior of dental feldspathic porcelains against uniform Si3N4 balls has been investigated using a small amplitude reciprocating apparatus under simulated oral conditions. The variables of load (10–40 N), reciprocating amplitude (100–500 μm), frequency (1–4 Hz) and use of artificial saliva lubrication were selected. Tests lasting up to 10,000 cycles were conducted. The bonded-interface technique was introduced into the wear test for the subsurface damage evaluation. Special attention was paid to the effects of friction conditions of tests, material properties and wear mechanism of dental porcelains. The results show Vita VMK95 possesses a lower friction coefficient and better wear resistance than Cerec Vitablocs MarkII. Among three parameters of the tests on the friction coefficient and wear depth of dental porcelains, the load effect is prominent. Artificial saliva plays an important role in lowering the friction coefficient and wear loss of dental porcelains. Abrasive wear is the main wear mechanism for both, but brittle cracks and delaminations are more frequent for Cerec Vitablocs MarkII, especially under non-lubricated friction. Surface brittle cracks are more dominant in low sliding cycles while subsurface cone or lateral cracks are prominent in high sliding cycles.

[1]  R. I. Holland.  Galvanic currents between gold and amalgam. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[2]  E. D. Rekow,et al.  Mechanical Characterization of Dental Ceramics by Hertzian Contacts , 1998, Journal of dental research.

[3]  Brian R. Lawn,et al.  Effect of Grain Size on Hertzian Contact Damage in Alumina , 1994 .

[4]  B. Lawn,et al.  Contact Damage Resistance and Strength Degradation of Glass-infiltrated Alumina and Spinel Ceramics , 1999, Journal of dental research.

[5]  J. Hankinson,et al.  Five years' clinical experience with a leucite-reinforced porcelain crown system. , 1994, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[6]  K. Anusavice,et al.  Effect of Firing Temperature and Water Exposure on Crack Propagation in Unglazed Porcelain , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[7]  C. Fairhurst,et al.  Fatigue of Dental Ceramics in a Simulated Oral Environment , 1986, Journal of dental research.

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

[9]  J A Tesk,et al.  Failure of All-ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures in vitro and in vivo: Analysis and Modeling , 1995, Journal of dental research.

[10]  R DeLong,et al.  Development of an Artificial Oral Environment for the Testing of Dental Restoratives: Bi-axial Force and Movement Control , 1983, Journal of dental research.

[11]  P M Marquis,et al.  Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  C. A. Sherrill,et al.  Transverse Strength of Aluminous and Feldspathic Porcelain , 1974 .

[13]  A. Harrison,et al.  The wear effects of selected composites on restorative materials and enamel. , 1987, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

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

[15]  T. Stolarski.  Modern Tribology Handbook , 2003 .

[16]  Said Jahanmir,et al.  Contact wear mechanisms of a dental composite with high filler content , 2000 .

[17]  R. DeLong,et al.  Wear of enamel and veneering ceramics after laboratory and chairside finishing procedures. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  B. Lawn.  Fracture of Brittle Solids by Brian Lawn , 1993 .

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

[20]  R. Giordano.  Dental ceramic restorative systems. , 1996, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.

[21]  Brian R. Lawn,et al.  Grain‐Size and R‐Curve Effects in the Abrasive Wear of Alumina , 1989 .

[22]  K J Anusavice,et al.  Structural reliability of alumina-, feldspar-, leucite-, mica- and zirconia-based ceramics. , 2000, Journal of dentistry.

[23]  Zhou Zhongrong,et al.  On the friction and wear behaviour of human tooth enamel and dentin , 2003 .

[24]  D. Dowson.  History of Tribology , 1979 .

[25]  H. Wilson,et al.  the relationship between transverse strength and testing methods for dental ceramics. , 1972, Journal of dentistry.

[26]  T. Mulhearn,et al.  The deformation of metals by vickers-type pyramidal indenters , 1959 .

[27]  A. C. Gonzalez,et al.  Sharp vs Blunt Crack Hypotheses in the Strength of Glass: A Critical Study Using Indentation Flaws , 1985 .

[28]  S. Campbell,et al.  Ceramics in dentistry: historical roots and current perspectives. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[29]  Wolfgang Grellmann,et al.  Performance and analysis of recording microhardness tests , 1977 .

[30]  J R Kelly,et al.  Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[31]  Hao Li,et al.  Wear behaviour of human teeth in dry and artificial saliva conditions , 2001 .

[32]  J. Planell,et al.  Comparison of the abrasive wear resistance between amalgams, hybrid composite material and different dental cements. , 1999, International dental journal.

[33]  Rekow Ed.  A review of the developments in dental CAD/CAM systems. , 1992 .