Wear Patterns of Adhesive Interfaces over Different Materials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2021.09.5Keywords:
Interface, Wear, Cyclic fatigue, CAD/CAM materialsAbstract
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate differences in surface wear of enamel-material and dentin-material bonded interfaces obtained from upper molars samples and subjected to cycling occlusal load.
Methods: Forty-eight flat specimens of enamel-material and dentin-material bonded interfaces were prepared using different restorative materials with both CAD-CAM techniques and direct techniques. After the bonding and cementation procedures specimens were tested with a chewing machine with a stainless-steel ball on flat sliding contact (20N loads, 50.000 cycles). Wear analysis and comparison of the enamel or dentin substrates and the three restorative materials was performed using a 3D profilometer and analyzed with ANOVA test and post-hoc comparison procedures. Finally worn surfaces were examined with optical microscopy.
Results: Statistical analysis after simulated chewing cycles identified a significant influence of the factor “substrate” (p<0.05) and of the factor “restorative material” (p<0.05). The enamel results in being more wear resistant than dentin, and also more resistant than all the restorative materials tested. Considering the materials, the most severe wear loss was observed with micro-hybrid composite paste. CAD-CAM materials showed a wear rate significantly better both in association with enamel and dentin. An interesting wear pattern was found at the bonded interface level and the oval shapes obtained from the profilometer images underlined a repetitive wear pattern with the central zone more consumed and decreasing depth moving towards the perimeter. Initials signs of cracks were showed in enamel interfaces at the optical microscopy analysis.
Conclusions: Both the dental substrate and the restorative material significantly affect the wear behavior of a toothmaterial interface after cyclic fatigue. Thus, the initial null hypotheses were rejected.
References
Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34(6): 849-853. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801
Xu Z, Xiong Y, Yu P, Zhao P, Arola D, Gao S. Wear and damage at the bonded interface between tooth enamel and resin composite. J Dent. 2019; 83: 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.02.004
Perdigão J, Araujo E, Ramos RQ, Gomes G, Pizzolotto L. Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021; 33(1): 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12692
Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: Aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater. 2008; 24(1): 90- 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009
Wulfman C, Koenig V, Mainjot AK. Wear measurement of dental tissues and materials in clinical studies: A systematic review. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater. 2018; 34(6): 825-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.002
Green JI. Prevention and Management of Tooth Wear: The Role of Dental Technology. Prim Dent J. 2016; 5(3): 30-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/205016841600500302
Wetselaar P, Lobbezoo F. The tooth wear evaluation system: a modular clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management planning of worn dentitions. J Oral Rehabil. 2016; 43(1): 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12340
Pitts NB, Zero DT, Marsh PD, et al. Dental caries. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2017; 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.30
Morimoto S, Rebello De Sampaio FBW, Braga MM, Sesma N, Özcan M. Survival Rate of Resin and Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. J Dent Res. 2016; 95(9): 985-994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516652848
Chandrasekhar V, Rudrapati L, Badami V, Tummala M. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J Conserv Dent JCD. 2017; 20(6): 386-391. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_157_16
Mesko ME, Sarkis-Onofre R, Cenci MS, Opdam NJ, Loomans B, Pereira-Cenci T. Rehabilitation of severely worn teeth: A systematic review. J Dent. 2016; 48: 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.03.003
Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016; 53: 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011
Ranjitkar S, Kaidonis JA, Townsend GC, Vu AM, Richards LC. An in vitro assessment of the effect of load and pH on wear between opposing enamel and dentine surfaces. Arch Oral Biol. 2008; 53(11): 1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.013
O'Brien S, Shaw J, Zhao X, et al. Size dependent elastic modulus and mechanical resilience of dental enamel. J Biomech. 2014; 47(5): 1060-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.030
Lacruz RS, Habelitz S, Wright JT, Paine ML. Dental Enamel Formation and Implications for Oral Health and Disease. Physiol Rev. 2017; 97(3): 939-993. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00030.2016
Feng Dandan null, Fan Fan null, Wang Rui null, Zhang Qiang null, Niu Haijun null. Measurement of human enamel mechanical characteristics with resonant ultrasound spectroscopy. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Int Conf. 2017; 2017: 2912-2915. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2017.8037466
Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Fonseca RG. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CADCAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120(2): 318.e1-318.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.011
Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Krämer N. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18(1): 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8
Ferracane JL, Condon JR. In vitro evaluation of the marginal degradation of dental composites under simulated occlusal loading. Dent Mater. 1999; 15(4): 262-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00045-7
Scotti N, Venturello A, Migliaretti G, Pera F, Pasqualini D, Geobaldo F, Berutti E. New-generation curing units and short irradiation time: the degree of conversion of microhybrid composite resin. Quintessence Int. 2011 Sep; 42(8): e89-95. PMID: 21842011.
Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, Teruel-Fernández J de D, Alcolea-Rubio LA, Hernández-Fernández A, Martínez-Beneyto Y, Gispert- Guirado F. Structural differences in enamel and dentin in human, bovine, porcine, and ovine teeth. Ann Anat Anat Anz Off Organ Anat Ges. 2018; 218: 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2017.12.012
Rasmussen ST, Patchin RE, Scott DB, Heuer AH. Fracture properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 1976; 55(1): 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345760550010901
Chun K, Choi H, Lee J. Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth. J Dent Biomech. 2014; 5: 1758736014520809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758736014520809
A comparative study on component volumes from outer to inner dental enamel in relation to enamel tufts - PubMed. Accessed June 15, 2021. https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24685496/
Thompson VP. The tooth: An analogue for biomimetic materials design and processing. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater. 2020; 36(1): 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.08.106
Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(12): 1232- 1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514553976
Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, et al. Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(3): 384-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.001
Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resinceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(4): 587-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.016
Furtado de Mendonca A, Shahmoradi M, Gouvêa CVD de, De Souza GM, Ellakwa A. Microstructural and Mechanical Characterization of CAD/CAM Materials for Monolithic Dental Restorations. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2019; 28(2): e587-e594. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12964
Putzeys E, Nys SD, Cokic SM, et al. Long-term elution of monomers from resin-based dental composites. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater. 2019; 35(3): 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.005
Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From Artisanal to CAD-CAM Blocks: State of the Art of Indirect Composites. J Dent Res. 2016; 95(5): 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516634286
Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO. Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater. 2016; 32(11): e275-e283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222
Xu Z, Yu P, Arola DD, Min J, Gao S. A comparative study on the wear behavior of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) material and tooth enamel. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater. 2017; 33(12): 1351-1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.190
Yu P, Xiong Y, Zhao P, et al. On the wear behavior and damage mechanism of bonded interface: Ceramic vs resin composite inlays. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020; 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103430
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, et al. Wear properties of a novel resin composite compared to human enamel and other restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2014; 39(6): 612-618. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-108-L
Chiba A, Hatayama T, Kainose K, et al. The influence of elastic moduli of core materials on shear stress distributions at the adhesive interface in resin built-up teeth. Dent Mater J. 2017; 36(1): 95-102. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-160
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, De Angelis F. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(3): 350-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.010
