Suppr超能文献

使用两种不同的磨损模拟方法研究拮抗剂材料对不同复合材料磨损的影响。

Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear simulation methods.

作者信息

Heintze S D, Zellweger G, Cavalleri A, Ferracane J

机构信息

Research & Development, In vitro-Research, Ivoclar Vivadent, Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein.

出版信息

Dent Mater. 2006 Feb;22(2):166-75. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.012. Epub 2005 Aug 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate two ceramic materials as possible substitutes for enamel using two wear simulation methods, and to compare both methods with regard to the wear results for different materials.

METHODS

Flat specimens (OHSU n=6, Ivoclar n=8) of one compomer and three composite materials (Dyract AP, Tetric Ceram, Z250, experimental composite) were fabricated and subjected to wear using two different wear testing methods and two pressable ceramic materials as stylus (Empress, experimental ceramic). For the OHSU method, enamel styli of the same dimensions as the ceramic stylus were fabricated additionally. Both wear testing methods differ with regard to loading force, lateral movement of stylus, stylus dimension, number of cycles, thermocycling and abrasive medium. In the OHSU method, the wear facets (mean vertical loss) were measured using a contact profilometer, while in the Ivoclar method (maximal vertical loss) a laser scanner was used for this purpose. Additionally, the vertical loss of the ceramic stylus was quantified for the Ivoclar method. The results obtained from each method were compared by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). To compare both wear methods, the log-transformed data were used to establish relative ranks between material/stylus combinations and assessed by applying the Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The experimental ceramic material generated significantly less wear in Tetric Ceram and Z250 specimens compared to the Empress stylus in the Ivoclar method, whereas with the OHSU method, no difference between the two ceramic antagonists was found with regard to abrasion or attrition. The wear generated by the enamel stylus was not statistically different from that generated by the other two ceramic materials in the OHSU method. With the Ivoclar method, wear of the ceramic stylus was only statistically different when in contact with Tetric Ceram. There was a close correlation between the attrition wear of the OHSU and the wear of the Ivoclar method (Pearson coefficient 0.83, p=0.01).

SIGNIFICANCE

Pressable ceramic materials can be used as a substitute for enamel in wear testing machines. However, material ranking may be affected by the type of ceramic material chosen. The attrition wear of the OHSU method was comparable with the wear generated with the Ivoclar method.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在使用两种磨损模拟方法评估两种陶瓷材料作为牙釉质可能替代品的可行性,并比较这两种方法对不同材料的磨损结果。

方法

制备了一种复合体和三种复合材料(Dyract AP、Tetric Ceram、Z250、实验性复合材料)的扁平试样(俄勒冈健康与科学大学n = 6,义获嘉n = 8),并使用两种不同的磨损测试方法和两种可压铸陶瓷材料作为探针(Empress、实验性陶瓷)对其进行磨损试验。对于俄勒冈健康与科学大学的方法,还制备了与陶瓷探针尺寸相同的牙釉质探针。两种磨损测试方法在加载力、探针横向移动、探针尺寸、循环次数、热循环和磨料介质方面存在差异。在俄勒冈健康与科学大学的方法中,使用接触轮廓仪测量磨损小平面(平均垂直损失),而在义获嘉的方法中(最大垂直损失),为此使用激光扫描仪。此外,对义获嘉方法中的陶瓷探针垂直损失进行了量化。通过方差分析和Tukey检验(p<0.05)比较了每种方法获得的结果。为了比较两种磨损方法,使用对数转换后的数据在材料/探针组合之间建立相对排名,并通过应用Pearson相关系数进行评估。

结果

与义获嘉方法中使用Empress探针相比,实验性陶瓷材料在Tetric Ceram和Z250试样中产生的磨损明显更少,而在俄勒冈健康与科学大学的方法中,两种陶瓷拮抗剂在磨损或磨耗方面未发现差异。在俄勒冈健康与科学大学的方法中,牙釉质探针产生的磨损与其他两种陶瓷材料产生的磨损在统计学上无差异。在义获嘉方法中,仅当陶瓷探针与Tetric Ceram接触时,其磨损在统计学上存在差异。俄勒冈健康与科学大学的磨耗磨损与义获嘉方法的磨损之间存在密切相关性(Pearson系数0.83,p = 0.01)。

意义

可压铸陶瓷材料可在磨损试验机中用作牙釉质的替代品。然而,材料排名可能会受到所选陶瓷材料类型的影响。俄勒冈健康与科学大学方法的磨耗磨损与义获嘉方法产生的磨损相当。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验