Wear of enamel opposing low-fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials.

Abstract

PURPOSE This study evaluated the wear area of human enamel opposing 2 conventional and 2 low-fusing dental porcelains, as well as abrasive wear, attrition, surface hardness, and fracture toughness for the 4 porcelain substrates. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two low-fusing and 2 conventional metal-ceramic porcelains were used to form 15-mm-diameter disks (n = 10), which were fired according to manufacturer's recommendations. Enamel cusps (n = 40) were formed from extracted third molars. All ceramic and enamel specimens were finished to a 1000-grit silicon carbide surface. The Oregon Health Sciences University (Portland, OR) oral wear simulator was used to deliver a 20-N load from the cusps to the ceramic substrates through a food-like slurry. The sliding action of the cusps over an 8-mm linear path produced abrasive wear. A static 70-N load was applied at the end of the path to create attrition. This sequence was repeated at 1.0 Hz for 50,000 cycles. Ceramic wear was measured with a profilometer (+/-2 micrometers), and enamel wear was evaluated using optical scanning methods. After wear testing, the hardness and fracture toughness of the ceramic surfaces were determined, and scanning electron photomicrographs were made using representative ceramic and enamel specimens from each group. Enamel wear areas, abrasion and attrition depths, hardness, and fracture toughness values were subjected to analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests to determine significant differences. RESULTS Enamel wear was not significantly different for low-fusing and conventional porcelains (p =.29). The wear of conventional and low-fusing ceramic substrates was also not significantly different (p =.79). However, depth of porcelain wear caused by attrition was in general significantly greater than abrasive wear (p =.0004). Although no significant differences were found in the measured porcelain hardness values (p =.08), 1 conventional porcelain exhibited fracture toughness significantly greater than 1 low-fusing porcelain (p <.01). CONCLUSIONS No differences in wear patterns were noted among low-fusing compared with conventional metal-ceramic porcelains, but static loading resulted in significantly greater attrition compared with the observed sliding abrasive wear. J Prosthodont 2001;10:8-15.

Cite this paper

@article{Clelland2001WearOE, title={Wear of enamel opposing low-fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials.}, author={Nancy L Clelland and Vaishali Agarwala and Lisa A Knobloch and Robert R Seghi}, journal={Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists}, year={2001}, volume={10 1}, pages={8-15} }