al-Hiyasat A S, Saunders W P, Sharkey S W, Smith G M, Gilmour W H
Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
J Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;26(5-6):487-95. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00041-9.
This in vitro study compared the wear of enamel against aluminous porcelin, bonded porcelain, low fusing hydrothermal ceramic, feldspathic machinable ceramic, and cast gold.
Fifty pairs of tooth-material specimens were tested in a dental wear machine, under a standard load (40 N), rate (80 cycles min-1) and for 25,000 cycles in distilled water. The amount of wear was determined by measuring the height loss of the tooth, and the depth of wear track of the restorative materials.
There was a significant difference in wear among the groups for both enamel and materials (p < 0.001). Follow-up comparisons (95% CI significance level) showed that gold caused significantly less enamel wear than all ceramics tested. The amount of enamel wear in the aluminous and bonded porcelain groups was significantly higher than with the hydrothermal and machinable ceramic groups. There was no significant difference between the amount of enamel wear produced by the aluminous and bonded porcelains nor between that produced by the hydrothermal and machinable ceramics. Furthermore, the wear of the aluminous and bonded porcelains was significantly greater than that of the hydrothermal ceramic, the machinable ceramics and gold. No significant difference in wear was found between aluminous and bonded porcelains, hydrothermal and machinable ceramics, or between machinable ceramic and gold. However, the hydrothermal ceramic had significantly greater wear than gold.
It was concluded that the hydrothermal and the machinable ceramics were significantly less abrasive and more resistant to wear than the conventional aluminous and bonded porcelains. Gold was the least abrasive material and most resistant to wear, although the difference in wear between the machinable ceramic and gold was not statistically significant.
本体外研究比较了牙釉质与铝瓷、全瓷贴面、低熔热液陶瓷、长石质可加工陶瓷及铸造金的磨损情况。
五十对牙齿 - 材料标本在牙科磨损试验机中于标准载荷（40 N）、速率（80次/分钟）下在蒸馏水中测试25,000次循环。通过测量牙齿的高度损失以及修复材料磨损轨迹的深度来确定磨损量。
牙釉质和材料组之间的磨损存在显著差异（p < 0.001）。后续比较（95%置信区间显著性水平）表明，金导致的牙釉质磨损明显少于所有测试陶瓷。铝瓷组和全瓷贴面组的牙釉质磨损量显著高于热液陶瓷组和可加工陶瓷组。铝瓷和全瓷贴面产生的牙釉质磨损量之间以及热液陶瓷和可加工陶瓷产生的牙釉质磨损量之间均无显著差异。此外，铝瓷和全瓷贴面的磨损明显大于热液陶瓷、可加工陶瓷和金。铝瓷和全瓷贴面、热液陶瓷和可加工陶瓷之间或可加工陶瓷和金之间的磨损无显著差异。然而，热液陶瓷的磨损明显大于金。
得出的结论是，与传统的铝瓷和全瓷贴面相比，热液陶瓷和可加工陶瓷的磨蚀性明显更低且更耐磨。金是磨蚀性最低且最耐磨的材料，尽管可加工陶瓷和金之间的磨损差异无统计学意义。
