Wear and surface roughness of monolithic cad/cam materials using two-body chewing simulation against enamel antagonists
TL;DR: In this article , the authors evaluated the wear and surface roughness of different esthetic CAD/CAM blocks and natural teeth antagonists before and after the chewing simulation procedure and concluded that Lava Ultimate is the least material that produced wear and roughness in the natural antagonist thus considered the friendliest material to natural teeth.
read more
Abstract: Background: Wear and surface roughness are major interacting properties that affect the function and appearance of esthetic CAD/CAM monolithic restorative materials and opposing natural dentition. Aim: Our research aimed to evaluate the wear and surface roughness of different esthetic monolithic CAD/CAM blocks and natural teeth antagonists before and after the chewing simulation procedure. Three types of esthetic CAD /CAM block materials were included in this study, nanoceramic resin ( Lava Ultimate ), polymer infiltrated ceramic (VITA Enamic) , and lithium silicate glass ceramic enriched with zirconia (VITA Suprinity) . Methodology: Twelve test samples were cut off as 2 mm thickness from size ‘14’ blocks of each material, with a saw microtome. The polishing procedure was done according to the steps determined by the manufacturers. Enamel cusps from extracted human premolar teeth were used as antagonists. A chewing simulator was used to perform the 2-body wear test. Wear was quantified by weight loss and roughness measurement. Results: Lava Ultimate exhibited the highest wear and surface roughness while its antagonist showed the least wear and roughness. There was no difference between wear weight loss in Enamic and Suprinity . Enamic had higher roughness than Suprinity . Natural tooth antagonists of Suprinity had the highest wear and surface roughness compared to that of Lava Ultimate and Enamic . Conclusion: Lava Ultimate is the least material that produced wear and roughness in the natural antagonist thus considered the friendliest material to natural teeth. However, Enamic can be recommended as CAD/CAM restorative material regarding the wear of the restoration and its enamel antagonist.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
References
•Book
Phillips' Science of Dental Materials
Kenneth J. Anusavice
- 01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The science of dental materials is studied in detail in the context of toothpastes, using X-ray diffraction analysis for the determination of particle numbers.
2.7K
Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and martens hardness
TL;DR: All permanent aesthetic CAD/CAM block materials tested behave similarly or better with respect to two-body wear and toothbrushing wear than human enamel, which is not true for temporary polymer CAD/Csam block materials.
349
Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter
TL;DR: Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) method showed higher capability to distinguish surface roughness compared with the 2-D profilometry and to reveal more detailed definition of surface texture than the examination under SEM.
343
Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods
Lucas Hian da Silva,Erick de Lima,Ranulfo Benedito de Paula Miranda,Stéphanie Soares Favero,Ulrich Lohbauer,Paulo Francisco Cesar +5 more
TL;DR: Dental ceramics and processing technologies have evolved significantly in the past ten years, with most of the evolution being related to new microstructures and CAD-CAM methods.
Wear of ceramic and antagonist--a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro.
TL;DR: The set-up that consists of unprepared enamel of molar cusps against glazed crowns seems to be the most appropriate method to evaluate a ceramic material with regard to antagonist wear, however, due to the high variability of results large sample sizes are necessary to differentiate between materials, which calls the whole in vitro approach into question.
290