Wear of enamel opposing low-fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials.
Wear of enamel opposing low-fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials.
复制标题
牙釉质的磨损与低熔点和传统陶瓷修复材料相反。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1532-849x.2001.00008.x
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Seghi,RR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clelland,NL;Agarwala,V;Knobloch,LA;Seghi,RR
目的：本研究评估了人类牙釉质对2种常规和2种低熔合牙釉质的磨损面积，以及4种瓷基质的磨料磨损、磨损、表面硬度和断裂韧性。材料和方法使用2个低熔合金属陶瓷和2个传统金属陶瓷形成直径为15毫米的圆盘（），并根据制造商的推荐烧制。牙釉质尖牙由拔出的第三磨牙形成。所有陶瓷和搪瓷样品都被加工成1000粒碳化硅表面。使用俄勒冈健康科学大学（Portland， OR）口腔磨损模拟器，通过类似食物的浆液将20‐N的载荷从牙尖输送到陶瓷基板上。尖端在8毫米线性路径上的滑动作用产生了磨料磨损。在路径末端施加70 - N的静态载荷以产生摩擦。该序列在1.0 Hz下重复了50,000个周期。陶瓷磨损用轮廓仪测量（±2微米），牙釉质磨损用光学扫描法评估。磨损试验结束后，测定陶瓷表面的硬度和断裂韧性，并对每组具有代表性的陶瓷和搪瓷试样进行扫描电镜观察。牙釉质磨损面积、磨损和磨损深度、硬度和断裂韧性值进行方差分析和Tukey - Kramer事后检验，以确定显著差异。结果低熔合烤瓷与普通烤瓷的釉质磨损无显著差异（p= 0.29）。传统陶瓷衬底和低熔点陶瓷衬底的磨损也没有显著差异（p= 0.79）。然而，摩擦引起的陶瓷磨损深度通常显著大于磨料磨损（p= .0004）。尽管在测量的瓷器硬度值中没有发现显著差异（p= .08），但1个传统瓷器的断裂韧性显著大于1个低熔合瓷器（p< .01）。结论低熔合金属陶瓷的磨损模式与传统金属陶瓷相比无显著差异，但静态加载导致的磨损明显大于滑动磨料磨损。
PurposeThis study evaluated the wear area of human enamel opposing 2 conventional and 2 low‐fusing dental porcelains, as well as abrasive wear, attrition, surface hardness, and fracture toughness for the 4 porcelain substrates.Materials and MethodsTwo low‐fusing and 2 conventional metal‐ceramic porcelains were used to form 15‐mm‐diameter disks (), which were fired according to manufacturer's recommendations. Enamel cusps () were formed from extracted third molars. All ceramic and enamel specimens were finished to a 1000‐grit silicon carbide surface. The Oregon Health Sciences University (Portland, OR) oral wear simulator was used to deliver a 20‐N load from the cusps to the ceramic substrates through a food‐like slurry. The sliding action of the cusps over an 8‐mm linear path produced abrasive wear. A static 70‐N load was applied at the end of the path to create attrition. This sequence was repeated at 1.0 Hz for 50,000 cycles. Ceramic wear was measured with a profilometer (±2 micrometers), and enamel wear was evaluated using optical scanning methods. After wear testing, the hardness and fracture toughness of the ceramic surfaces were determined, and scanning electron photomicrographs were made using representative ceramic and enamel specimens from each group. Enamel wear areas, abrasion and attrition depths, hardness, and fracture toughness values were subjected to analysis of variance and Tukey‐Kramer post hoc tests to determine significant differences.ResultsEnamel wear was not significantly different for low‐fusing and conventional porcelains (p= .29). The wear of conventional and low‐fusing ceramic substrates was also not significantly different (p= .79). However, depth of porcelain wear caused by attrition was in general significantly greater than abrasive wear (p= .0004). Although no significant differences were found in the measured porcelain hardness values (p= .08), 1 conventional porcelain exhibited fracture toughness significantly greater than 1 low‐fusing porcelain (p< .01).ConclusionsNo differences in wear patterns were noted among low‐fusing compared with conventional metal‐ceramic porcelains, but static loading resulted in significantly greater attrition compared with the observed sliding abrasive wear.