Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 165–172 | Cite as

Dental materials for primary dentition: are they suitable for occlusal restorations? A two-body wear study

  • D. LazaridouEmail author
  • R. Belli
  • N. Krämer
  • A. Petschelt
  • U. Lohbauer
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

This was to evaluate the wear resistance of different materials, compomers, resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs), glass ionomer cements (GICs), used for posterior restorations in primary teeth and to compare the results with the reference material, amalgam.

Study design

Eight specimens of each material were subjected to two-body wear test, using a chewing simulator. The wear region of each material was examined under a profilometer, measuring the vertical loss (μm) and the volume loss (mm3) of the materials.

Results

The results showed significant differences of vertical loss and volume loss of the test materials (p < 0.001). Amalgam had the highest wear resistance. Twinky Star (compomer) had the lowest vertical loss and volume loss. There was no significant difference of vertical loss among compomers,  Dyract Extra, Dyract Flow and Dyract Posterior. Riva Self Cure (GIC) had no statistically significant difference compared with the compomers (except Twinky Star). No statistically significant difference was found also between Equia (GIC) and Ketac Moral (GIC) with Dyract Extra (Compomer). RMGICs were found to have the lowest wear resistance.

Statistics

For the statistical analysis, the PASW 20.0 (SPSS Statistics, IBM, Chicago) package was used. Means and standard deviations were measured with descriptive statistics and analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

Conclusion

Compomers and some GICs, that have moderate wear resistance, may be sufficient for occlusal restorations in primary dentitions.

Keywords

Wear resistance Chewing simulator Compomers RMGIC GIC 

References

  1. AAPD Guidelines on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Revised 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Abesi F, Safarcherati H, Sadati J, Kheirollahi H. In vitro wear of Ionofil molar AC quick glass-ionomer cement. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:731.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:325–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Basso MJ. Teeth restoration using a high- viscosity glass ionomer cement: the Equia® system. Minim Interv Dent. 2011;4:74–6.Google Scholar
  5. Beriat NC, Nalbant D. Water absorption and HEMA release of resin-modified glass-ionomers. Eur J Dent. 2009;3:267–72.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Correr GM, Bruschi Alonso RC, Correr Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM, Ferracane JL. In vitro wear of resin-based materials–simultaneous corrosive and abrasive wear. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;78:101–5.Google Scholar
  7. de Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1996;75:1613–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Delong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006;22:702–11.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbs GH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, et al. Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;46:443–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater. 2006;22:712–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL. Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists, and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:425–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM, Blake SM. Localized wear of compomer restorative materials. Am J Dent. 2001;14:238–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Adey JD. Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater. 2002;18:1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011;24:124–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2010;3:76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent. 1996;24:141–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater. 2007;23:615–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pelka M, Ebert J, Schneider H, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Comparison of two and three-body wear of glass-ionomers and composites. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104:132–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Peutzfeldt A, Garcia-Godoy F, Asmussen E. Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers. Am J Dent. 1997;10:15–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Turssi CP, De Moraes Purquerio B, Serra MC. Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods—a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2003;65:280–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Noort R. Introduction in dental materials. 3rd ed. Edinburg, London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Sydney, Toronto: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. pp 99–151.Google Scholar
  22. Warren JJ, Yonezu T, Bishara SE. Tooth wear patterns in the deciduous dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:614–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW. Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dent Mater. 1994;10:269–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000;16:129–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH. Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater. 2004;20:277–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhao J, Weng Y, Xie D. In vitro wear and fracture toughness of an experimental light-cured glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2009;25:526–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Lazaridou
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Belli
    • 1
  • N. Krämer
    • 2
  • A. Petschelt
    • 1
  • U. Lohbauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Dental Clinic 1-Operative Dentistry and PeriodontologyFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)ErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Paediatric DentistryUniversity Medical Center Giessen and MarburgGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations