Data acquisition variability using profilometry to produce accurate mean total volumetric wear and mean maximum wear depth measurements for the OHSU oral wear simulator

Investigation into the validity of WearCompare, a purpose-built software to quantify erosive tooth wear progression

“…Positive gain during alignment represents error in the process. Volumetric change gives an indication of the total surface change [17,28], taking into account negative and positive deviations. In our data, there were no statistical differences in volume change between the two softwares, although the error value was smaller for WearCompare.…”

An approach to understanding tribological behaviour of dental composites through volumetric wear loss and wear mechanism determination; beyond material ranking

“…The profilometric analyses were performed across an area of 8 mm length and a 3 mm width with data points recorded every 40 µm interval in the y-direction and every 4 µm in the xdirection, resulting in 150,951 data points for each wear facet which increases the confidence in the mean total wear volume data [5,11] compared with analogue measurements routinely used in dentistry [7][8][9]13,[29][30][31][32][33]. Additionally, the accuracy and precision volumetric loss measurement data was confirmed by identifying for the accuracy and precision of data recorded for a 1.0 mm step size which was 1.51 and 0.54 µm, respectively.…”

“…Wear tested samples displayed characteristic shallow wear tracks and were scanned using a In line with the profilometic analyses, ten traces were performed across a standard step height of 1.0 mm to determine the accuracy and precision of the wear depth measurements for the scanning conditions (300 µm range CLA, scanning at 2 mm/s with longitudinal traces at 4 µm intervals (x-direction) and horizontal traces recorded at 40 µm intervals (y-direction) for a resolution of 0.1 µm (z-direction). The accuracy was calculated as the mean error from the true value, whilst the precision was quantified as the standard deviation of the errors measured [5,[10][11].…”

“…Until recently, confusion existed on whether wear depth, area or volume should be reported [10] although the volume of material removed due to the interaction of opposing surfaces was shown to be the parameter of choice for reporting the in-vitro wear of RBCs [11] based on Archard's equation [12]. Too frequently in dentistry, wear depth or wear area are reported but wear in the mouth is dependent upon occlusal factors which change continuously with time and the progression of wear [10].…”

“…Too frequently in dentistry, wear depth or wear area are reported but wear in the mouth is dependent upon occlusal factors which change continuously with time and the progression of wear [10]. In addition, authors that claim to assess the wear volume often fail to examine the wear facet sufficiently [13] or ensure the accuracy and precision of the wear measurements reported [5][6]11,14]. From a tribology perspective, there are four fundamental wear mechanisms that can exist, namely abrasion, adhesion, fatigue or corrosion [15][16] and wear facets are infrequently assessed following testing to elucidate the wear mechanisms operative during testing.…”