Wear of dental materials: Clinical significance and laboratory wear simulation methods —A review

Abstract

This review focusses on tribological aspects of teeth during function, the clinical significance of wear, wear of natural teeth and restorative materials and laboratory methods to simulate wear of restorative materials. Ceramic, metal alloy and amalgam show low material wear, whereas resin-based materials demonstrate substantial wear in the long term. The clinical wear shows a high variability with the patient factor accounts for about 50% of the variability. Wear as such seldomly compromises the function of the stomatognath system or individual teeth and is in most cases an esthetic problem. Particles that are ingested due to attrition and abrasion wear may pose a health risk to the patient, especially those from composite resin materials. However, systematic clinical studies on that issue are not available. For laboratory research many wear simulation devices and methods have been developed but only few are validated and have a moderate correlation with clinical wear.

In vivo wear of CAD-CAM composite versus lithium disilicate full coverage first-molar restorations: a pilot study over 2 years

“…The connection and correlation of these parameters are explained excellent by DeLong et al [29]. However, the methodology of wear measurements under clinical conditions is currently intensively discussed [30][31][32][33][34]. In this clinical study, the parameter of vertical height loss measured perpendicular to working surface was applied.…”

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

“…Wear of composite resins is mainly influenced by filler characteristics that determine the Sa and friction coefficient. Besides the filler load, shape, and hardness of filler particles, the quality of their bond to the organic matrix and the density of the polymer network determine their wear resistance [ 48 ]. The present study tested three-body abrasion by toothbrushing and determined that TEC was the material with the highest Sa, although significant differences before and after wear were found for all the materials.…”

“…The high Sa of TEC could be attributed to large pre-polymerised fillers that bonded poorly to the resin matrix, thus allowing their easy dislodgement. The low FM of SDR and FBF probably gave them an advantage with regard to Sa, making them more pliable [ 48 ]. Interestingly, St values determining the peak-to-valley height were significantly higher after wear for TEC and FBF, but not for SDR.…”

Clinical outcomes of single crown restorations fabricated with resin-based CAD/CAM materials

“…Occlusal wear of the resin-based CAD/CAM restorations was observed at a relatively high rate in the posterior area [5,9]. It is known that clinical wear of resin-based materials is higher compared with ceramic materials and dental alloys [19]. However, the clinical wear of the resin-based restorations does not directly interfere with the clinical long-term results of the restorations [19].…”

“…It is known that clinical wear of resin-based materials is higher compared with ceramic materials and dental alloys [19]. However, the clinical wear of the resin-based restorations does not directly interfere with the clinical long-term results of the restorations [19]. A review article suggested that recent resin-based materials, such as dispersed nanoparticle-filled composite resin and resin infused ceramic hybrid, have lower wear values than hybrid composite resin materials [20].…”