This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Krämer, N. Articles by Frankenberger, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Krämer, N. Articles by Frankenberger, R. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Antagonist Enamel Wears More Than Ceramic Inlays

¹ Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University Medical Center Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, D-01307, Dresden, Germany;
² Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, City Centre University Clinics, University of Munich, Germany;
³ Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinics, University Medical Center, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstrasse 11, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany; and
⁴ Bioscience Research Center, College of Dental Medicine, 3200 South University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328-2018, USA

Correspondence: ^* corresponding author, frankbg{at}dent.uni-erlangen.de

Wear phenomena of ceramic inlays are not fully understood. The aim of the present study was to evaluate ceramic wear, antagonist enamel wear, and luting cement wear over 8 years. The two-fold null hypothesis was that there would be (1) no difference in wear behavior between ceramic and enamel, and (2) no influence of filler content of luting composites on composite wear. From 96 restorations, 36 Class II inlays from 16 participants were selected. For inlays with opposing enamel cusps (n = 17), replicas of inlays and enamel were scanned with a 3-D laser scanner. Luting gaps of inlays (n = 36) were analyzed with a profilometer, including 3-D data analysis. Ceramic and enamel wear increased between 4 and 8 years, with significantly higher values for enamel after 6 years (p < 0.05). Luting gap wear increased continuously up to 8 years (p < 0.05), with no influence of luting composites (p > 0.05) and location of teeth (p > 0.05).

Key Words: glass ceramics • resin composites • clinical trial • wear • antagonist

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 85, No. 12, 1097-1100 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910608501206


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