Wear resistance of a pressable low-fusing ceramic opposed by dental alloys

Faria, Adriana Cláudia Lapria; Oliveira, André Almeida de; Gomes, Érica Alves; Rodrigues, Rossana Lott; Ribeiro, Ricardo Faria

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.12.018

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[56][57][58] The wear caused by ceramics appears more related to surface roughness and fracture toughness 55,59,60 and should be conveniently considered as a multifactorial condition. 61 Unlike the case of ceramics, composites produce wear on their antagonist through hard filler protruding from the abraded resin matrix, and the hardness is thought to be a reliable predictor of their abrasiveness. 53,54 According to the general knowledge about wear between two contacting materials, a softer material is abraded more easily than an opposing harder one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear Evaluation of Prosthetic Materials Opposing Themselves

D’Arcangelo

Vanini²,

Rondoni³

et al. 2018

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to compare the two-body wear resistance of a type 3 gold alloy (Aurocast8), two lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD and IPS e.max Press), a heat-pressed feldspathic porcelain (Cerabien ZR Press), an yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal ceramic (Katana Zirconia ML), and three heat-cured composite resins (Ceram.X Universal, Enamel Plus Function, and Enamel Plus HRi) opposing antagonistic cusps made out of the same restorative materials. Ten 6-mm-thick samples and 10 cusp-shaped abraders were manufactured with each test material (n=10) according to standard laboratory procedures. All sample/antagonist pairs made out of the same material were subjected to a two-body wear test in a dual-axis chewing simulator for up to 120,000 loading cycles. The total vertical wear (mm) and the total volumetric loss (mm) for each sample/antagonist pair were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance tests. The total vertical wear for the gold alloy was not significantly different compared to Ceram.X Universal, Enamel Plus Function, IPS e.max CAD, and Cerabien ZR Press. Significantly increased wear values were observed for Enamel Plus HRi and IPS e.max Press. The lowest values for total vertical wear and volumetric loss were recorded on the monolithic zirconia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear Evaluation of Prosthetic Materials Opposing Themselves

D’Arcangelo

Vanini²,

Rondoni³

et al. 2018

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study we followed the regime for wear testing at a rate of 60 cycle/ min for total of (60,000 cycles) under a load of (20 N) in reciprocating distance of (4-6 mm) which represents (120 days) as described by lmai et al (21). The load of 20 N used in this study applied on a small sample, that simulates a tooth cuspid determines high tension values over the restoration according to Coppedê et al 2013 (22) and Faria et al (23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear Behaviour and Surface Roughness of Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic Material Compared to Pressable Glass Ceramic

Elhomiamy

Aboushady²,

Malakh

2015

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Multiple restorative materials with various chemical, mechanical and physical characteristics are used as permanent dental restorations. The appropriate selection of a restorative material is crucial for preserving the occlusal harmony and normal masticatory function. Several aspects during selection of restorative materials should be considered, among which are the wear behaviour and abrasive nature of the restorative materials and natural enamel. Objectives: The study determines the two-body wear and surface roughness measurement, of polymer infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic) and pressable lithium disilicate based ceramic (IPS e.max press). Materials and methods: Two-body wear was investigated in custom made tooth wear brushing machine (60,000 cycles, 20 N and 60 cycle/min). The test specimens were divided into two groups, each group consisted of 8 ceramic specimens and 8 enamel cusp antagonists. Quantitative analysis of wear was carried out with subtractive weight loss of all specimens before and after wear test. Surface roughness measurements were evaluated before and after the wear test using a white light interference microscope. The data was collected and statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney (U) test. Results: Statically significant differences were found for two-body wear, with Vita Enamic samples show lower wear loss than IPS e.max press samples and cause less enamel wear loss. The Vita Enamic showed lower surface roughness and caused less surface roughness to enamel cusp antagonist than IPS e.max press samples. Conclusions: Vita Enamic revealed lower wear loss contributed by terms of weight loss and surface roughness change than IPS e.max press. IPS e.max press contributed to more surface roughness and wear loss of opposing enamel than Vita Enamic.

show abstract

“…Despite that many scientific researches related dental materials' hardness to their wear resistance and abrasiveness to the opposing, but recently ceramic materials' wear behavior is described as complex multifactorial, influenced by many variables, hardness is one of them but not the only significant variable. These variables include microstructure, porosity, crystal size, surface roughness, and environment (28,(54)(55)(56)(57)(58) . Presence of an exact and precise correlation between hardness and wear of brittle materials was described by being inappropriate, as they wear through subsurface microfractures, not like metals that wear by plastic deformation (52,59,60) .…”

Section: Yilmaz Et Al (2007)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear, Microhardness and Fracture Toughness of Different CAD/CAM Ceramics

Asaad

Salem

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate wear of three CAD/CAM ceramics (Lithium disilicate, Zirconia reinforced-lithium silicate, Zirconia-based) and their opposing enamel antagonists in addition to their microhardness & fracture toughness. Materials and Methods: Thirty rectangular shaped samples (12 x 14 x 2 mm) were fabricated and divided into three groups according to the type of ceramic used (10 samples each): Group (IP): IPS e.max CAD, Group(VS):Vita Suprinity and Group(BZ): BruxZir. Each group was divided into two subgroups (5 samples each) according to the testing procedure. The first subgroups were subjected to microhardness and fracture toughness tests, while the second subgroups were first weighed then subjected to wear test and finally re-weighed again before being subjected to microhardness and fracture toughness tests. Results: Wear results showed a significant difference in weight loss of tested ceramics and the antagonist tooth structure between (BZ) and both (IP) & (VS). Microhardness of the three ceramics were significantly different in each subgroup regardless of wear test. Regarding fracture toughness, there was a significant difference between (BZ) and both (IP) & (VS) in both subgroups. For all tested ceramics, both subgroups (without wear and after wear) were not statistically significantly different regarding microhardness and fracture toughness. Conclusions: BruxZir showed the best wear behavior and the worst abrasiveness to enamel. Microhardness and fracture toughness were the highest for zirconia-based ceramic but both parameters were not affected by thermo-mechanical aging of wear test for the three tested ceramics.

show abstract

Wear resistance of a pressable low-fusing ceramic opposed by dental alloys

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Wear Evaluation of Prosthetic Materials Opposing Themselves

Wear Evaluation of Prosthetic Materials Opposing Themselves

Wear Behaviour and Surface Roughness of Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic Material Compared to Pressable Glass Ceramic

Wear, Microhardness and Fracture Toughness of Different CAD/CAM Ceramics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About