PURPOSE: This study was performed to investigate the effect of a carbonated beverage on the wear of human enamel and three dental ceramics: a conventional porcelain (Vitadur Alpha), a hydrothermal low-fusing ceramic (Duceram-LFC), and a machinable ceramic (Vita Mark II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tooth-against-ceramic specimens (10 per group) were tested in a wear machine under a load of 40 N, at a rate of 80 cycles per minute, and for a total of 25,000 cycles. The test was performed in distilled water or with intermittent exposure to a carbonated beverage (Coca-Cola). Wear was determined by measuring the height reduction of the tooth specimens and the depth of wear track in the ceramic specimens. RESULTS: ANOVA revealed a significant difference among the groups for both enamel and ceramic wear (p < .001). When tested in water, Alpha porcelain caused significantly more enamel wear and also exhibited greater wear than Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II. However, with exposure to the carbonated beverage, the enamel wear produced by Duceram-LFC did not differ significantly from that produced by Alpha porcelain, and Vita Mark II produced the least amount of enamel wear. Overall, exposure to the carbonated beverage significantly increased the enamel wear. The wear of Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II increased with exposure to the carbonated beverage. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that exposure to the carbonated beverage accelerated the enamel wear and decreased the wear resistance of Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II ceramics. Overall, Vita Mark II was shown to be the most resistant to wear and also significantly less abrasive than conventional Alpha porcelain.
PURPOSE: This study was performed to investigate the effect of a carbonated beverage on the wear of human enamel and three dental ceramics: a conventional porcelain (Vitadur Alpha), a hydrothermal low-fusing ceramic (Duceram-LFC), and a machinable ceramic (Vita Mark II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tooth-against-ceramic specimens (10 per group) were tested in a wear machine under a load of 40 N, at a rate of 80 cycles per minute, and for a total of 25,000 cycles. The test was performed in distilled water or with intermittent exposure to a carbonated beverage (Coca-Cola). Wear was determined by measuring the height reduction of the tooth specimens and the depth of wear track in the ceramic specimens. RESULTS: ANOVA revealed a significant difference among the groups for both enamel and ceramic wear (p < .001). When tested in water, Alpha porcelain caused significantly more enamel wear and also exhibited greater wear than Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II. However, with exposure to the carbonated beverage, the enamel wear produced by Duceram-LFC did not differ significantly from that produced by Alpha porcelain, and Vita Mark II produced the least amount of enamel wear. Overall, exposure to the carbonated beverage significantly increased the enamel wear. The wear of Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II increased with exposure to the carbonated beverage. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that exposure to the carbonated beverage accelerated the enamel wear and decreased the wear resistance of Duceram-LFC and Vita Mark II ceramics. Overall, Vita Mark II was shown to be the most resistant to wear and also significantly less abrasive than conventional Alpha porcelain.