Magne P, Oh W S, Pintado M R, DeLong R
School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Dec;82(6):669-79. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70008-9.
This in vitro study compared the wear of enamel against 3 types of ceramics with high esthetic potential (designed for layering techniques): feldspathic porcelain (Creation), aluminous porcelain (Vitadur alpha), and low-fusing glass (Duceram-LFC). Laboratory finishing (glazing/polishing) and chairside polishing with a Dialite kit were simulated to compare their respective effects on wear.
Tooth-material specimen pairs were placed in an artificial mouth using closed-loop servohydraulics. Constant masticatory parameters (13.5 N occlusal force, 0.62 mm lateral excursion; 0.23 second cuspal contact time) were maintained for 300, 000 cycles at a rate of 4 Hz. The occlusal surface of each pair was mapped and digitally recorded before and after each masticatory test. Quantitative changes were measured in terms of depth and volume of wear. Quantitative wear characteristics were assessed by SEM.
Significant differences were observed (2-factor ANOVA, P <.05). Duceram-LFC generated increased volume loss of enamel (0.197 mm(3)) compared with Creation (0.135 mm(3)) and Vitadur alpha (0.153 mm(3)). Creation exhibited the lowest ceramic wear and lowest combined volume loss (0.260 mm(3); the sum of the data for enamel and the opposing material) compared with Duceram-LFC (0.363 mm(3)) and Vitadur alpha (0.333 mm(3)). The most significant differences among materials were observed in volume loss, not in depth of wear. For all 3 ceramic systems, qualitative SEM evaluation revealed an abrasive type of wear. Wear characteristics of chairside polished specimens were similar to those of laboratory finished specimens (glazed and polished).
Duceram-LFC was the most abrasive ceramic for the antagonistic tooth. Creation ceramic was the least abrasive material and most resistant to wear. Defects, brittleness, and the possibly insufficient toughness of LFC may explain its increased abrasiveness. Laboratory and chairside finishing procedures generated similar results.
本体外研究比较了牙釉质与3种具有高美学潜力的陶瓷材料（设计用于分层技术）的磨损情况：长石质瓷（Creation）、氧化铝瓷（Vitadur alpha）和低熔玻璃（Duceram-LFC）。模拟了实验室修整（上釉/抛光）和使用Dialite套装进行椅旁抛光，以比较它们对磨损的各自影响。
使用闭环伺服液压系统将牙齿 - 材料样本对放置在人工口腔中。以4 Hz的频率保持恒定的咀嚼参数（13.5 N咬合力、0.62 mm侧向偏移；0.23秒尖牙接触时间）300,000次循环。在每次咀嚼测试前后，对每对样本的咬合面进行测绘并数字记录。根据磨损深度和体积测量定量变化。通过扫描电子显微镜评估定量磨损特征。
观察到显著差异（双因素方差分析，P <.05）。与Creation（0.135 mm³）和Vitadur alpha（0.153 mm³）相比，Duceram-LFC导致牙釉质的体积损失增加（0.197 mm³）。与Duceram-LFC（0.363 mm³）和Vitadur alpha（0.333 mm³）相比，Creation表现出最低的陶瓷磨损和最低的总体积损失（0.260 mm³；牙釉质和相对材料的数据总和）。材料之间最显著的差异在于体积损失，而非磨损深度。对于所有3种陶瓷系统，扫描电子显微镜定性评估显示为磨蚀性磨损类型。椅旁抛光样本的磨损特征与实验室修整样本（上釉和抛光）相似。
Duceram-LFC是对拮抗牙磨损性最强的陶瓷材料。Creation陶瓷是磨损性最小且最耐磨的材料。LFC的缺陷、脆性以及可能不足的韧性可能解释了其增加的磨损性。实验室和椅旁修整程序产生了相似的结果。
Zotero 插件