Heintze S D, Zappini G, Rousson V
R&D, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein.
Dent Mater. 2005 Apr;21(4):304-17. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.003.
The purpose of the present study was to prove the hypothesis that different wear measurement methods generate different material rankings.
Ten restorative materials, eight composites (BelleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar RO, SureFil, Targis cured at 95 and 130 degrees C, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (Empress) have been evaluated with regard to the wear with five different wear methods (IVOCLAR, ZURICH, MUNICH, OHSU, ACTA). Every center received specimens, which Ivoclar Vivadent had made using the same batch. The test centers did not know which brand they were testing. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test center, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material.
Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centers. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA and IVOCLAR the highest. Materialwise, the best global performance was achieved by Empress, which was clearly ahead of BelleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar RO, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by BelleGlass and SureFil, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar RO was poor.
As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.
本研究的目的是验证不同磨损测量方法会产生不同材料排名的假设。
采用五种不同的磨损方法（IVOCLAR、苏黎世、慕尼黑、俄勒冈健康与科学大学、ACTA）对十种修复材料进行了磨损评估，这十种材料包括八种复合材料（BelleGlass、Chromasit、Estenia、Heliomolar RO、SureFil、在95摄氏度和130摄氏度下固化的Targis、Tetric Ceram）、一种汞合金（Amalcap）和一种陶瓷（Empress）。每个中心都收到了由义获嘉伟瓦登特公司使用同一批次制作的试样。测试中心不知道他们测试的是哪个品牌。磨损试验完成后，原始数据被发送到义获嘉进行进一步分析。数据的统计分析包括数据的对数转换、每个测试中心内每种材料的相对排名计算、方法之间的一致性测量、每种方法的辨别力和变异系数，以及每种材料的一致性和整体性能测量。
各测试中心之间材料的相对排名差异极大。当考虑所有材料并将测试方法相互比较时，只有ACTA与另外两种方法（即俄勒冈健康与科学大学和苏黎世）的一致性较好。另一方面，慕尼黑与其他方法完全不一致。苏黎世方法的辨别力最低，ACTA和IVOCLAR的辨别力最高。就材料而言，Empress的整体性能最佳，明显领先于BelleGlass、SureFil和Estenia。相比之下，Heliomolar RO、Tetric Ceram，尤其是Chromasit的整体性能较差。BelleGlass和SureFil的一致性最佳，而Amalcap和Heliomolar RO的一致性较差。
由于不同的磨损模拟器设置测量的是不同的磨损机制，因此组合至少两种不同的磨损设置来评估新材料的耐磨性似乎是合理的。
