Effect of Sliding Movement Mechanism on Contact Wear Behavior of Composite Materials in Simulation of Oral Environment
- 32 Downloads
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the sliding motion mechanism on contact-wear resistance of composite materials under in vitro chewing test process. In the conditions recommended by the manufacturer, composite test specimens (P60, Cleafil AP-X, Grandio, Heliomolar, Supreme, and Z250) were produced from each composite material. All test specimens were kept in pure water for at least 1-week period and Vickers hardness was determined before contact wear tests. Then contact wear tests were performed using a chewing simulation (50 N, 240.000 chewing cycles 1.2 Hz and 37 °C temperature). Each contact wear test, steatite ball with a diameter of 6 mm was used as antagonist material. Half of the specimens of each test group were loaded with a sliding movement of 0.7 mm, the other half remaining without sliding movement. The mean volume loss of all specimens after the contact wear tests was determined with use 3D profilometer. In addition to a random specimen was selected from each test group and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images were taken for analysis of wear tracks. All composite materials showed significantly more volume loss when it occurred sliding movement than without sliding movement contact wear tests. It can be suggested in this work that the larger monomer and harder surface glass structure contained in the composite material cause more volume loss when it occurred during sliding contact wear mechanism.
KeywordsWear Sliding movement Composite Simulation of mouth motion Volume loss
The author would like to thank Prof. Recep Sadeler (Atatürk University) for his precious contribution.
- 11.Ghazal M, Steiner M, Kern M (2008) Wear resistance of artificial denture teeth. Int J Prosthodont 21(2):166–168Google Scholar
- 12.Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, van Putten M (1999) Two-body wear resistance and degree of conversion of laboratory-processed composite materials. Int J Prosthodont 12(5):432–438Google Scholar
- 21.Wimmer T, Huffmann AMS, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B (2016) Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mater 32(6):E127–E136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Yap AUJ, Teoh SH, Tan KB (2000) Influence of water exposure on three-body wear of composite restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res 53(5):547–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(200009)53:5%3c547:Aid-Jbm14%3e3.0.Co;2-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Jorgensen KD (1980) Restorative resins—abrasion vs mechanical-properties. Scand J Dent Res 88(6):557–568Google Scholar