Comparative characteristics of wear resistance of advanced polymer composites

Downloads

Authors

  • S.A. Nikolaenko 1, 2, 3, 4, д.м.н., профессор, ведущий научный сотрудник; директор; директор; руководитель
  • E.V. Pechenegina 2, 4, стоматолог-терапевт
  • A.I. Zubarev 1, 2, 3, 4, к.м.н., стоматолог-терапевт-ортопед, старший научный сотрудник; зав. ортопедическим отделением; сотрудник; специалист по эпитетике
  • Yu.V. Fedorov 2, 4, научный сотрудник
  • U. Lohbauer 5, доктор (PhD), руководитель Научно-исследовательской лаборатории биоматериалов стоматологической клиники № 1
  • 1 Федеральный исследовательский центр «Красноярский научный центр» СО РАН
  • 2 Профессорская стоматология «ЗубНик», Красноярск
  • 3 Российско-германский центр «Эпитетика», Красноярск
  • 4 ЦДПО «Профессорская практика», Красноярск
  • 5 Фридрих-Александр университет Эрлангена-Нюрнберга, Германия

Abstract

In the past years one of the most common failure of resin-based material restorations was the low wear resistance, which led to loss of anatomical form. New generation flowable composite resin materials are popular among dentists because of their easy handling but their wear resistance constitutes a clinical concern. The aim of the present study was to compare the wear resistance of the resin composite materials when as antagonists different materials, steatite and enamel were used. 9 contemporary dental materials including both condensable composites and flowable composites were compared. The specimens of each material were subjected to two-body wear tests, using a chewing simulator. The wear region of each material was examined under profilometer, measuring the vertical loss (μm) and the volume loss (mm3) of the materials. Additionally, SEM analysis and stereomicroscopy was performed to assess surfaces irregularities. The majority of composites demonstrated a good wear resistance. Different surface state of the composites and volume loss values were measured among composites when enamel and steatite balls were used as antagonists.

Key words:

wear resistance, resin composite materials, steatite balls antagonists, chewing simulator

For Citation

[1]
Nikolaenko S.A., Pechenegina E.V., Zubarev A.I., Fedorov Yu.V., Lohbauer U. Comparative characteristics of wear resistance of advanced polymer composites. Clinical Dentistry (Russia).  2017; 3 (83): 4—9

References

  1. Abesi F., Safarcherati H., Sadati J. et al. In vitro wear of Ionofil Molar AC quick glass-ionomer cement. - Indian J Dent Res. - 2011; 22 (5): 731.
  2. Abesi F., Safarcherati H., Sadati J. et al. In vitro wear of Ionofil Molar AC quick glass-ionomer cement. - Indian J Dent Res. - 2011; 22 (5): 731.
  3. Beun S., Glorieux T., Devaux J. et al. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. - Dent Mater. - 2007; 23 (1): 51-9.
  4. Clelland N.L., Pagnotto M.P., Kerby R.E. et al. Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite. - J Prosthet Dent. - 2005; 93 (2): 153-7.
  5. Ferracane J.L. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict? - Dent Mater. - 2013; 29 (1): 51-8.
  6. Hahnel S., Schultz S., Trempler C. et al. Two-body wear of dental restorative materials. - J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. - 2011; 4 (3): 237-44.
  7. Han J.M., Zhang H., Choe H.S. et al. Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin. - Dent Mater J. - 2014; 33 (6): 725-32.
  8. Heintze S.D., Zellweger G., Grunert I. et al. Laboratory methods for evaluating the wear of denture teeth and their correlation with clinical results. - Dent Mater. - 2012; 28 (3): 261-72.
  9. Heintze S.D., Barkmeier W.W., Latta M.A. et al. Round robin test: wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators-supplement to the round robin test of 2005. - Dent Mater. -2011; 27 (2): 1-9.
  10. Kakuta K., Wonglamsam A., Goto S. et al. Surface textures of composite resins after combined wear test simulating both occlusal wear and brushing wear. - Dent Mater J. -2012; 31 (1): 61-7.
  11. Kyoizumi H., Yamada J., Suzuki T., Kanehira M., Finger W.J., Sasaki K. Effects of toothbrush hardness on in vitro wear and roughness of composite resins. - J Contemp Dent Pract. - 2013; 14 (6): 1137-44.
  12. Ornaghi B.P., Meier M.M., Lohbauer U. et al. Fracture toughness and cyclic fatigue resistance of resin composites with different filler size distributions. - Dent Mater. - 2014; 30 (7): 742-51.
  13. Sumino N., Tsubota K., Takamizawa T. et al. Comparison of the wear and flexural characteristics of flowable resin composites for posterior lesions. - Acta Odontol Scand. -2013; 71 (3): 820-7.
  14. Turssi C.P., Ferracane J.L., Serra M.C. Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. - Dent Mater. - 2005; 21 (7): 641-8.
  15. Wang L. Impact of filler size and distribution on roughness and wear of composite resin after simulated toothbrushing. - J Appl Oral Sci. - 2012; 20 (5): 510-6.
  16. Zantner C., Kielbassa A.M., Martus P. et al. Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. - Dent Mater. - 2004; 20 (3): 277-85.
  17. Zhao J., Weng Y., Xie D. In vitro wear and fracture toughness of an experimental light-cured glass-ionomer cement. - Dent Mater. - 2009; 25 (4): 526-34.

Downloads

Published on

September 1, 2017