A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials
A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.dental.2005.08.010
复制
发表时间：
2006-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Rousson, V.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Heintze, S. D.;Cavalleri, A.;Rousson, V.
客观的。利用磨损模拟器，采用不同的方法来量化扁平样品上产生的磨损。然而，目前还没有系统的研究将不同磨损量化方法与一系列表现出不同磨损率的材料进行比较。十六种修复材料，包括 14 种复合材料（BelleGlass、Chromasit、Estenia、Esthet-X、Four Seasons、Heliomolar RO、Heliomolar HB、Herculite XRV、InTen-S、Point 4、SureFil、Targis 在 95 和 130 摄氏度下固化、Tetric Ceram）以及汞合金 (Amalcap) 和陶瓷 (Empress) 材料在 Willytec 磨损模拟器（120,000 次循环，5 kg，1.6 Hz）中对标准化 Empress 拮抗剂进行磨损。使用轮廓测量装置（Perthometer）和 FRT MicroProf 光学传感器直接对样本上的体积和最大垂直损失进行量化。制作石膏复制品后，还使用 3D 激光扫描设备确定损失。为了进行统计分析，对数据进行对数变换。计算组内相关性以衡量所有三种方法之间的一致性，而一致性限度用于将一种方法与另一种方法进行比较。结果。体积和垂直损失的所有三种量化方法之间都非常一致。与光学传感器相比，机械传感器测得的体积损失值始终较高（校正因子 0.95），而垂直损失值始终较低（校正因子 1.17）。然而，材料的排名仅受量化方法的轻微影响。显着性。所有三个传感器都适用于磨损面的量化。由于速度快且简单，激光传感器比其他两种传感器具有更大的优势。 (C) 2005 年牙科材料学会。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Objective. Different approaches are utilized to quantify the wear generated on flat specimens with a wear simulator. However, there are no systematic studies comparing different wear quantification methods with a series of materials that exhibit different wear rates.Methods. Sixteen restorative materials, including 14 composites (BelleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Esthet-X, Four Seasons, Heliomolar RO, Heliomolar HB, Herculite XRV, InTen-S, Point 4, SureFil, Targis cured at 95 and 130 degrees C, Tetric Ceram) as well as an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (Empress) material, were subjected to attrition wear against standardized Empress antagonists in the Willytec wear simulator (120,000 cycles, 5 kg, 1.6 Hz). The volume and maximal vertical loss were quantified directly on the specimens with a profilometry device (Perthometer) and the FRT MicroProf optical sensor. After the fabrication of plaster replicas, the loss was also determined with a 3D laser scanning device. For the statistical analysis, the data were subjected to a logarithmic transformation. Intraclass correlation was calculated to measure the agreement among all three methods, while limits of agreement were used to compare one method against another.Results. There was a very good agreement between all three quantification methods for both volume and vertical loss. The mechanical sensor measured consistently higher values compared to the optical sensors for the volume loss (correction factor 0.95), whereas for the vertical loss, consistently lower values were obtained (correction factor 1.17). However, the ranking of the materials was only marginally influenced by the quantification method.Significance. All three sensors are suitable for the quantification of wear facets. Due to speed and simplicity, the laser sensor has greater advantages over the two other sensors. (C) 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.