Grymak Anastasiia, Aarts John M, Ma Sunyoung, Waddell J Neil, Choi Joanne Jung Eun
Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
J Prosthodont. 2022 Jul;31(6):472-487. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13432. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
To systematically review studies on various materials and methods used for wear testing of occlusal devices and their antagonists in vitro and in vivo.
An electronic search in OVID, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus was conducted using the following terms (MeSH words) with any synonyms and closed terms: "Splint*" OR "occlusal splint*" OR "night guard" OR "occlusal device" OR "occlusal devices" OR "deprogrammer" OR "bite splint" OR "bite plane" OR "orthotic appliance*" OR "orthotic devices" AND "wear" OR "two-body wear" OR "three-body wear" OR "tooth wear" OR "wear measurement*" OR "wear behaviour" OR "wear behavior" OR "abrasion" AND "Polymethyl Methacrylate" OR "PMMA" OR "acrylic resin*" OR "dental material*" OR "dental enamel" OR "CAD" OR "CAM" OR "PEEK" OR "material* testing". Database search was limited to English-language publications and published between 2001 and 1st of September 2021. A further hand search was done to ensure all materials were captured.
After the removal of duplicates, 115 studies were identified, and 11 were chosen for review. Studies showed that the lowest volumetric loss was observed in PEEK occlusal device materials, whereas heat-cure, CAD-milled, and 3D printed occlusal device materials had no significant difference in wear. Vacuum-formed materials showed the highest wear among all groups. Testing parameters were found to be inconsistent across all studies.
There is a need for standardization of in vitro and in vivo wear measurement and testing protocols as this study revealed a wide variety of testing protocols which potentially could influence the outcome. Polishing procedures are required for the material. Limited studies are available on 3D printed occlusal device materials and would therefore require further investigation, especially on printing build angles and settings. Further clinical studies would be advantageous to provide guidance on the selection of the best occlusal device material that would last the longest without remake.
系统回顾关于用于咬合装置及其对抗物体外和体内磨损测试的各种材料和方法的研究。
在OVID、Web of Science、PubMed和Scopus中进行电子检索，使用以下术语（医学主题词）及其任何同义词和封闭词：“夹板*”或“咬合夹板*”或“夜磨牙保护器”或“咬合装置”或“咬合装置”或“解除程序器”或“咬合板”或“咬合平面”或“矫正器具*”或“矫正装置”以及“磨损”或“两体磨损”或“三体磨损”或“牙齿磨损”或“磨损测量*”或“磨损行为”或“磨损行为”或“磨耗”以及“聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯”或“PMMA”或“丙烯酸树脂*”或“牙科材料*”或“牙釉质”或“CAD”或“CAM”或“PEEK”或“材料*测试”。数据库搜索限于2001年至2021年9月1日期间发表的英文出版物。进一步进行人工检索以确保涵盖所有材料。
去除重复项后，确定了115项研究，选择了11项进行综述。研究表明，PEEK咬合装置材料的体积损失最低，而热固化、CAD铣削和3D打印的咬合装置材料在磨损方面无显著差异。真空成型材料在所有组中磨损最高。发现所有研究中的测试参数不一致。
由于本研究揭示了各种可能影响结果的测试方案，因此需要对体外和体内磨损测量及测试方案进行标准化。材料需要进行抛光程序。关于3D打印咬合装置材料的研究有限，因此需要进一步研究，特别是关于打印构建角度和设置。进一步的临床研究将有助于为选择使用寿命最长且无需重新制作的最佳咬合装置材料提供指导。
