Cargando…

Wear Behaviour of Polymer-Infiltrated Network Ceramics, Lithium Disilicate and Cubic Zirconia against Enamel in a Bruxism-Simulated Scenario

The present study aimed to evaluate the wear rate of polymer-infiltrated network composites and ceramics against enamel in a bruxism-simulated scenario. Ninety-six (n = 96) molars were divided into six groups (n = 16) according to their occlusal material: group 1—a polymer-infiltrated network cerami...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baldi, Andrea, Carossa, Massimo, Comba, Allegra, Alovisi, Mario, Femiano, Felice, Pasqualini, Damiano, Berutti, Elio, Scotti, Nicola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9313215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35884986
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10071682
Descripción
Sumario:The present study aimed to evaluate the wear rate of polymer-infiltrated network composites and ceramics against enamel in a bruxism-simulated scenario. Ninety-six (n = 96) molars were divided into six groups (n = 16) according to their occlusal material: group 1—a polymer-infiltrated network ceramic (PINC); group 2—a second polymer-infiltrated network ceramic (PINC2); group 3—nanohybrid resin-based composite (CO); group 4—cubic zirconia (ZR); group 5—lithium disilicate (LS); and group 6—sound enamel (EN). A laser scanner was used to digitalize all of the occlusal surfaces before and after a fatigue test, which was conducted with a chewing simulator set at 80 N and semicircular movement in order to simulate bruxist movement and loads. Statistical analysis of volume loss was performed with a one-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni test. ZR had significantly inferior wear to PINC (p ≤ 0.01) and CO (p = 0.04). LS wore the antagonist enamel significantly more than PINC, CO, PINC2 and EN (p ≤ 0.01). On the other hand, ZR wore the antagonist enamel significantly more than CO (p ≤ 0.01) and PINC2 (p = 0.05). In conclusion, PINCs better preserved antagonist enamel at the expense of a higher wear of their own. LS causes significantly higher enamel wear compared with PINCs. ZR caused significantly higher enamel wear compared with CO and PINC2, but it was wear-resistant.