This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lutz, F. Articles by Barbakow, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lutz, F. Articles by Barbakow, F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Chewing Pressure us. Wear of Composites and Opposing Enamel Cusps

Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Dental Institute, Zürich University, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland

I. Krejci

Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Dental Institute, Zürich University, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland

F. Barbakow

Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Dental Institute, Zürich University, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland

The effects of various chewing pressures on the wear of composites and enamel were assessed in vitro. Standardized composite discs (8 mm in diameter, 2 mm in height) were made of a fine-particle hybrid (FPH), a coarse-particle hybrid (CPH), and ahomogeneous microfilled composite (HMC). The composite specimens were chemically degraded by immersion in 75% ethanol for 24 h, brushed for 30 min, and then thermocycled 300 times (5-55-5°C) while being occlusally loaded 120,000 times at 1.7 Hz, with chewing forces of 25, 50, 75, and 100 N. Standardized human enamel cusps with a uniform contact area of 0.384 mm2 served as antagonists in the chewing machine. Wear of the composites and enamel cusps, their combined wear, and the increase of the enamel contact surfaces were quantified. An increase in chewing pressure significantly enhanced the wear of both composite and enamel in all groups except for the antagonists opposing a HMC. The FPH was most wear-resistant to in vitro chewing pressures in the range of 6.58 to 19.74 MN/m², the CPH at 26.32 MN/m2, while the HMC was the most enamel-friendly of the three composites tested. The FPH composite had the least disintegration in the occlusal contact area. The ranking of the composites generally varied at the different chewing pressures with respect to the three types of quantified wear-that is, composite wear, enamel wear, and total wear.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 71, No. 8, 1525-1529 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345920710081201


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. J. Christensen Remaining challenges with Class II resin-based composite restorations J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2007; 138(11): 1487 - 1489. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.H.K. Xu, E. Eichmiller, A.A. Giuseppetti, L.K. Ives, E.E. Parry, and G.E. Schumacher Three-body Wear of a Hand-consolidated Silver Alternative to Amalgam Journal of Dental Research, September 1, 1999; 78(9): 1560 - 1567. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Krejci, P. Albert, and F. Lutz The Influence of Antagonist Standardization on Wear Journal of Dental Research, February 1, 1999; 78(2): 713 - 719. [Abstract] [PDF]