Shiro Suzuki1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, AL 35294-0007, USA. Shiro@mail.dental.uab.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.
PURPOSE: Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS:Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.