Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zurich, Plattenstr. 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Dec;21(9):2689-2693. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2071-9. Epub 2017 Feb 9.
This study aimed to analyse loss of enamel worn against composite, leucite glass ceramic or enamel antagonists under non-erosive and alternating or simultanuous erosive-attritive conditions.
Flat human enamel specimens were loaded (1 Hz, 300 g loading weight, each subgroup n = 12) with antagonists made from a hybrid-composite (Z250, 3 M Espe), a nano-composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M Espe), leucite glass ceramic (IPS Empress CAD LT, Ivoclar Vivadent) or enamel. Specimens were either submitted to mechanical loading in mineral solution (60 s) or to loading under alternating or simultaneous erosive conditions. For alternating erosion-attrition, specimens were eroded by citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s) and then loaded with the respective antagonist for 60s. For simultaneous erosion-attrition, specimens were loaded with the respective antagonist while being immersed in citric acid (pH 2.6, 60 s). After each cycle, specimens were stored in water for 1 h. After 18 cycles, enamel loss was calculated profilometrically and statistically analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (p < 0.05).
Enamel loss (μm, mean ± standard deviation) was significantly highest for simultaneous erosion-attrition (ceramic 9.4 ± 1.1, hybrid-composite 8.3 ± 0.7, nano-composite 7.8 ± 1.2, enamel 7.4 ± 0.8) followed by alternating erosion-attrition (ceramic 3.5 ± 0.5, hybrid-composite 2.1 ± 0.8, nano-composite 1.0 ± 0.2, enamel 2.5 ± 0.7) and attrition in mineral solution (ceramic 0.5 ± 0.3, hybrid composite 0.3 ± 0.1, nano composite 0.1 ± 0.2, enamel 0.1 ± 0.1). Ceramic antagonists resulted in significantly higher loss than the remaining antagonistic materials when alternating or simultaneous erosion-attrition was performed.
Erosive conditions had a massive impact on enamel worn against different antagonistic materials, with simultaneous erosive-attritive conditions being more detrimental than alternating erosive-attritive conditions.
Enamel wear by antagonistic restorative materials is significantly influenced by erosive conditions.
本研究旨在分析在非侵蚀性和交替或同时侵蚀性-磨损条件下，复合树脂、透锂长石玻璃陶瓷或牙釉质对牙釉质的磨损情况。
将平面人牙釉质标本（1Hz，300g 加载重量，每组 n=12）与由混合复合材料（Z250，3M Espe）、纳米复合材料（Filtek Supreme XTE，3M Espe）、透锂长石玻璃陶瓷（IPS Empress CAD LT，Ivoclar Vivadent）或牙釉质制成的拮抗剂进行负载。标本要么在矿化溶液中进行机械加载（60s），要么在交替或同时侵蚀条件下进行加载。对于交替侵蚀-磨损，标本用柠檬酸（pH2.6，60s）侵蚀，然后用相应的拮抗剂加载 60s。对于同时侵蚀-磨损，标本在柠檬酸（pH2.6，60s）中浸泡时用相应的拮抗剂加载。每个循环后，标本在水中储存 1 小时。经过 18 个循环后，通过轮廓测量法计算牙釉质的磨损量，并通过双向方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验进行统计学分析（p<0.05）。
同时侵蚀-磨损（陶瓷 9.4±1.1、混合复合材料 8.3±0.7、纳米复合材料 7.8±1.2、牙釉质 7.4±0.8）的牙釉质磨损（μm，平均值±标准差）显著最高，其次是交替侵蚀-磨损（陶瓷 3.5±0.5、混合复合材料 2.1±0.8、纳米复合材料 1.0±0.2、牙釉质 2.5±0.7）和矿化溶液中的磨损（陶瓷 0.5±0.3、混合复合材料 0.3±0.1、纳米复合材料 0.1±0.2、牙釉质 0.1±0.1）。当进行交替或同时侵蚀-磨损时，陶瓷拮抗剂的磨损量明显高于其余拮抗材料。
侵蚀性条件对不同拮抗材料磨损牙釉质有很大影响，同时侵蚀性-磨损性条件比交替侵蚀性-磨损性条件更具危害性。
拮抗修复材料的牙釉质磨损受侵蚀性条件的显著影响。
