Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey; and ITI Scholar, Department of Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jun;131(6):1235.e1-1235.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.026. Epub 2024 Apr 9.
Additive (AM) and subtractive (SM) manufacturing have become popular for fabricating occlusal devices with materials of different chemical compositions. However, knowledge on the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear characteristics of occlusal devices fabricated by using different methods is limited.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear of occlusal devices fabricated by using conventional manufacturing, AM, and SM.
Two-hundred and forty Ø10×2-mm disk-shaped specimens were fabricated by using heat-polymerized polymethylmethacrylate (control, CM), AM clear device resin fabricated in 3 different orientations (horizontal [AMH], diagonal [AMD], and vertical [AMV]), SM polymethylmethacrylate (SMP), and SM ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone (SMB) (n=40). Specimens were then divided into 4 groups based on the antagonists: steatite ceramic (SC); multilayered zirconia (ZR); lithium disilicate (EX); and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) used for thermomechanical aging (n=10). After aging, the volume loss (mm) and maximum wear depth (μm) were digitally evaluated. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05).
The interaction between the device material and the antagonist affected volume loss and maximum depth of wear (P<.001). AMH had volume loss and depth of wear that was either similar to or higher than those of other materials (P≤.044). When SC was used, CM had higher volume loss and depth of wear than AMV, and, when EX was used, AMD had higher volume loss and depth of wear than SMP (P≤.013). SC and ZR led to higher volume loss of CM and AMH than EX and led to the highest depth of wear for these materials, while ZR also led to the highest volume loss and depth of wear of AMD and AMV (P≤.019). EX led to the lowest volume loss and depth of wear of AMV and SMP and to the lowest depth of wear of AMH (P≤.021). Regardless of the antagonist, SMB had the lowest volume loss and depth of wear (P≤.005).
AMH mostly had higher volume loss and depth of wear, while SMB had the lowest volume loss, and its depth of wear was not affected by the tested antagonists. ZR mostly led to higher volume loss and maximum depth of wear, while EX mostly led to lower volume loss and maximum depth of wear of the tested occlusal device materials.
添加剂（AM）和减法（SM）制造已成为用不同化学成分的材料制造咬合设备的热门方法。然而，对于使用不同方法制造的咬合设备，材料和对颌类型对其磨损特性的影响的知识有限。
本体外研究的目的是评估材料和对颌类型对使用常规制造、AM 和 SM 制造的咬合设备的磨损的影响。
使用热聚合聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（对照，CM）、在 3 种不同方向（水平[AMH]、对角[AMD]和垂直[AMV]）制造的 AM 透明设备树脂、SM 聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（SMP）和 SM 陶瓷增强聚醚醚酮（SMB）制造了 240 个 Ø10×2-mm 圆盘状试件（n=40）。然后根据对颌类型将试件分为 4 组：滑石陶瓷（SC）；多层氧化锆（ZR）；锂硅玻璃陶瓷（EX）；和氧化锆增强锂硅玻璃陶瓷（ZLS）用于热机械老化（n=10）。老化后，通过数字评估体积损失（mm）和最大磨损深度（μm）。使用双因素方差分析和 Tukey Honestly 显著性差异检验（α=.05）对数据进行分析。
设备材料与对颌的相互作用影响体积损失和最大磨损深度（P<.001）。AMH 的体积损失和磨损深度与其他材料相似或更高（P≤.044）。当使用 SC 时，CM 的体积损失和磨损深度高于 AMV，当使用 EX 时，AMD 的体积损失和磨损深度高于 SMP（P≤.013）。SC 和 ZR 导致 CM 和 AMH 的体积损失高于 EX，导致这些材料的最大磨损深度，而 ZR 还导致 AMD 和 AMV 的最大体积损失和磨损深度（P≤.019）。EX 导致 AMV 和 SMP 的最低体积损失和磨损深度以及 AMH 的最低磨损深度（P≤.021）。无论对颌类型如何，SMB 的体积损失和磨损深度最低（P≤.005）。
AMH 大多具有较高的体积损失和磨损深度，而 SMB 具有最低的体积损失，其磨损深度不受测试对颌的影响。ZR 大多导致更高的体积损失和最大磨损深度，而 EX 大多导致测试咬合设备材料的更低体积损失和最大磨损深度。
