Annette Wiegand1, Aleksandra Credé2, Claudia Tschammler3, Thomas Attin2, Tobias T Tauböck2. 1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. annette.wiegand@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zurich, Plattenstr. 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse loss of enamel worn against composite, leucite glass ceramic or enamel antagonists under non-erosive and alternating or simultanuous erosive-attritive conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flat human enamel specimens were loaded (1 Hz, 300 g loading weight, each subgroup n = 12) with antagonists made from a hybrid-composite (Z250, 3 M Espe), a nano-composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M Espe), leucite glass ceramic (IPS Empress CAD LT, Ivoclar Vivadent) or enamel. Specimens were either submitted to mechanical loading in mineral solution (60 s) or to loading under alternating or simultaneous erosive conditions. For alternating erosion-attrition, specimens were eroded by citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s) and then loaded with the respective antagonist for 60s. For simultaneous erosion-attrition, specimens were loaded with the respective antagonist while being immersed in citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s). After each cycle, specimens were stored in water for 1 h. After 18 cycles, enamel loss was calculated profilometrically and statistically analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Enamel loss (μm, mean ± standard deviation) was significantly highest for simultaneous erosion-attrition (ceramic 9.4 ± 1.1, hybrid-composite 8.3 ± 0.7, nano-composite 7.8 ± 1.2, enamel 7.4 ± 0.8) followed by alternating erosion-attrition (ceramic 3.5 ± 0.5, hybrid-composite 2.1 ± 0.8, nano-composite 1.0 ± 0.2, enamel 2.5 ± 0.7) and attrition in mineral solution (ceramic 0.5 ± 0.3, hybrid composite 0.3 ± 0.1, nano composite 0.1 ± 0.2, enamel 0.1 ± 0.1). Ceramic antagonists resulted in significantly higher loss than the remaining antagonistic materials when alternating or simultaneous erosion-attrition was performed. CONCLUSION: Erosive conditions had a massive impact on enamel worn against different antagonistic materials, with simultaneous erosive-attritive conditions being more detrimental than alternating erosive-attritive conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Enamel wear by antagonistic restorative materials is significantly influenced by erosive conditions.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse loss of enamel worn against composite, leucite glass ceramic or enamel antagonists under non-erosive and alternating or simultanuous erosive-attritive conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flat human enamel specimens were loaded (1 Hz, 300 g loading weight, each subgroup n = 12) with antagonists made from a hybrid-composite (Z250, 3 M Espe), a nano-composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M Espe), leucite glass ceramic (IPS Empress CAD LT, Ivoclar Vivadent) or enamel. Specimens were either submitted to mechanical loading in mineral solution (60 s) or to loading under alternating or simultaneous erosive conditions. For alternating erosion-attrition, specimens were eroded by citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s) and then loaded with the respective antagonist for 60s. For simultaneous erosion-attrition, specimens were loaded with the respective antagonist while being immersed in citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s). After each cycle, specimens were stored in water for 1 h. After 18 cycles, enamel loss was calculated profilometrically and statistically analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Enamel loss (μm, mean ± standard deviation) was significantly highest for simultaneous erosion-attrition (ceramic 9.4 ± 1.1, hybrid-composite 8.3 ± 0.7, nano-composite 7.8 ± 1.2, enamel 7.4 ± 0.8) followed by alternating erosion-attrition (ceramic 3.5 ± 0.5, hybrid-composite 2.1 ± 0.8, nano-composite 1.0 ± 0.2, enamel 2.5 ± 0.7) and attrition in mineral solution (ceramic 0.5 ± 0.3, hybrid composite 0.3 ± 0.1, nano composite 0.1 ± 0.2, enamel 0.1 ± 0.1). Ceramic antagonists resulted in significantly higher loss than the remaining antagonistic materials when alternating or simultaneous erosion-attrition was performed. CONCLUSION: Erosive conditions had a massive impact on enamel worn against different antagonistic materials, with simultaneous erosive-attritive conditions being more detrimental than alternating erosive-attritive conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Enamel wear by antagonistic restorative materials is significantly influenced by erosive conditions.
Authors: Sarbin Ranjitkar; John A Kaidonis; Grant C Townsend; Anh M Vu; Lindsay C Richards Journal: Arch Oral Biol Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: Larissa Natiele Miotto; Mariana de Oliveira Carlos Villas-Bôas; Edgar Dutra Zanotto; Eduardo Bellini Ferreira; Laiza Maria Grassi Fais; Lígia Antunes Pereira Pinelli Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 3.896