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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AAPD Guidelines on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Revised 2012.
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.
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.
Basso MJ. Teeth restoration using a high- viscosity glass ionomer cement: the Equia® system. Minim Interv Dent. 2011;4:74–6.
Beriat NC, Nalbant D. Water absorption and HEMA release of resin-modified glass-ionomers. Eur J Dent. 2009;3:267–72.
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.
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.
Delong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006;22:702–11.
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.
Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater. 2006;22:712–34.
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.
Latta MA, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM, Blake SM. Localized wear of compomer restorative materials. Am J Dent. 2001;14:238–40.
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.
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.
Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2010;3:76–96.
Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent. 1996;24:141–8.
Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”) and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater. 2007;23:615–22.
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.
Peutzfeldt A, Garcia-Godoy F, Asmussen E. Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers. Am J Dent. 1997;10:15–7.
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.
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.
Warren JJ, Yonezu T, Bishara SE. Tooth wear patterns in the deciduous dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:614–8.
Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW. Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dent Mater. 1994;10:269–74.
Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000;16:129–38.
Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH. Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater. 2004;20:277–85.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present work was performed in Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) in fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree “Dr. med. dent” from the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lazaridou, D., Belli, R., Krämer, N. et al. Dental materials for primary dentition: are they suitable for occlusal restorations? A two-body wear study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 16, 165–172 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-014-0151-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-014-0151-y