Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
J Dent. 2024 May;144:104952. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104952. Epub 2024 Mar 19.
Evaluation of the two-body wear of lithium-silicate ceramics against different antagonists compared to a direct resin composite and human teeth.
Initial LiSi Block [LISI], IPS e.max CAD [EMA], and CEREC Tessera [TESE] were investigated and compared with direct resin composite [FILL] and human teeth [tooth]. As antagonists were used: steatite, ceramic, and human enamel. The control group tooth was only tested with enamel antagonist. The combinations underwent thermomechanical aging using a chewing simulator. Material losses were calculated using GOM-analysis software. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney-U-test with Bonferroni correction and Spearman-rho correlation were calculated. A fractographic analysis was performed.
Within TESE, enamel antagonists led to lower restoration losses than steatite and ceramic antagonists. Within FILL, enamel and steatite antagonists caused lower material losses compared to ceramic antagonists. Against steatite antagonists, LISI showed lowest material losses. Against ceramic antagonists, the use of LISI led to lower material losses compared to FILL. Against tooth antagonists, TESE showed lower material losses than tooth and FILL and LISI lower than FILL. Within LISI, steatite antagonists showed lower material losses on the antagonist than ceramic. Within EMA, steatite antagonists showed higher material losses than ceramic ones. Within ceramic antagonists, LISI restoration material showed lower material losses than FILL and EMA.
Regardless of the antagonist material, the material losses of LISI and EMA were comparable. However, the abrasion resistance of LISI tended to be higher than EMA.
LISI is a fully crystallized lithium-silicate ceramic and no longer needs to be processed after milling. In addition, the abrasion resistance is very good, regardless of the antagonist material chosen.
评估两种体磨锂硅瓷与不同对颌材料（与直接复合树脂及人牙相比）的磨耗。
研究并比较了初始 LiSi Block [LISI]、IPS e.max CAD [EMA] 和 CEREC Tessera [TESE]，与直接复合树脂 [FILL] 和人牙 [tooth] 相比。作为对颌材料，使用了滑石、陶瓷和人釉质。对照组仅用人釉质作为对颌材料进行测试。将这些组合在咀嚼模拟器中进行热机械老化。使用 GOM 分析软件计算材料损失。采用 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 检验、Kruskal-Wallis H 检验、Mann-Whitney-U 检验和 Bonferroni 校正以及 Spearman-rho 相关分析。进行了断口分析。
在 TESE 中，与滑石和陶瓷对颌材料相比，釉质对颌材料导致修复体的材料损失较低。在 FILL 中，与陶瓷对颌材料相比，釉质和滑石对颌材料导致的材料损失较低。与滑石对颌材料相比，LISI 的材料损失最低。与陶瓷对颌材料相比，与 FILL 相比，使用 LISI 导致的材料损失较低。与牙对颌材料相比，TESE 的材料损失低于牙和 FILL，而 LISI 低于 FILL。在 LISI 中，滑石对颌材料的材料损失低于陶瓷对颌材料。在 EMA 中，滑石对颌材料的材料损失高于陶瓷对颌材料。在陶瓷对颌材料中，LISI 修复材料的材料损失低于 FILL 和 EMA。
无论对颌材料如何，LISI 和 EMA 的材料损失都相当。然而，LISI 的耐磨性似乎高于 EMA。
LISI 是一种完全结晶化的锂硅瓷，铣削后无需再加工。此外，无论选择何种对颌材料，其耐磨性都非常好。
