Effect of Contact Area Size on Enamel and Composite Wear

Abstract

The effect of contact area dimensions on the wear of composite specimens and their opposing enamel cusps was evaluated in vitro. Thirty-six standardized cylindrical composite specimens were placed into metal cavities (8 mm x 2 mm) and divided randomly into five groups. The composite used was a fine-particle hybrid and was stressed as follows: storage in 75% aqueous ethanol solution for 24 h, toothbrush/toothpaste-abrasion for 30 min, followed by 300 thermal cycles in water ranging from 5° to 55°C and simultaneous 120,000 occlusal chewing loads at a frequency of 1.7 Hz at 53 N maximum force. In group 1 (n = 12), the occlusal chewing loads were applied by palatal cusps of extracted human maxillary molars with natural morphology. In groups 2 to 5 (n = 6), the cusp tips had standardized contact area dimensions of 0.26, 0.38, 1.18, and 4.10 mm2, respectively. Wear of composite specimens and antagonistic enamel cusps (means ± SD) was assessed in μm by means of a 3-D scanner. Additionally, the contact surfaces of the restorations and of the antagonistic enamel cusps were evaluated by SEM. Increases in enamel contact areas after being loaded were measured by means of a digitizer and expressed in percent of the initial size before stress exposure. The wear of the composite specimens varied from 69.8 ± 19.9 to 9.5 ± 3.6 μm, and that of antagonistic enamel cusps from 31.3 ± 3.4 to 8.8 ± 1.5 μm. The increase in contact area varied between 27.8 and 0.1%. Composite and antagonistic enamel wore significantly (p < 0.001, ANOVA, Scheffe) less with increased contact area dimensions. The most severe disintegration of the composite was found in specimens occluding with the smallest enamel contact area. The extent of wear and the wear mechanisms were related to the chewing pressure, which in turn was governed by the contact area dimension.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Braem M. , Lambrechts P. , VanDoren V. , Vanherle G. (1986). In vivo evaluation of four posterior composites: quantitative wear measurements and clinical behavior. Dent Mater 2:106-113.

Burwell JT (1957/58). Survey of possible wear mechanisms. Wear 1 :119-141.

Craig RG (1989). Dental restorative materials. St. Louis (MO): C.V. Mosby Co., 65-112.

Dietschi D. , Holz J. ( 1990). A clinical trial of four light-curing posterior composite resins: two-year report. Quint Int 21:965-975.

Krejci I. , Albertoni M. , Lutz F. ( 1990b). In-vitro-testverfahren zur evaluation dentaler restaurationssysteme. 2. Zahnbürsten-/zahnpastaabrasion und chemische degradation. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100 :1164-1168.

Krejci I. , Heinzmann J-L. , Lutz F. ( 1990c). Verschleiss von schmelz, amalgam und ihrer schmelzantagonisten im computergesteuerten kausimulator. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1285-1291

Krejci I. , Lutz F. ( 1990). In-vitro-testverfahren zur evaluation dentaler restaurationen: 3. Korrelation mit in-vivo-resultaten. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1445-1449.

Krejci I. , Reich T. , Lutz F. , Albertoni M. (1990a). In-vitro-testverfahren zur evaluation dentaler restaurationssysteme. 1. Computergesteuerter kausimulator. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:953-960.

Lambrechts P. (1983). Basic properties of dental composites and their impact on clinical performance (thesis). Leuven (Belgium): Katholieke Universiteit.

10.

Leinfelder KF (1987). Wear patterns and rates of posterior composite resins. Int Dent J 37:152-157.

11.

Lutz F. ( 1980): Beitrage zur entwicklung von seitenzahnkomposits (PhD thesis). Zurich (Switzerland): Zahnarztliches Institut der Universitat.

12.

Lutz F. , Phillips R. (1983). A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 50:480-488.

13.

McCabe JF , Ogden AR (1987). The relationship between porosity, compressive fatigue limit and wear in composite resin restorative materials. Dent Mater 3:9-12.

14.

McKinney JE , Wu W. (1982). Relationship between subsurface damage and wear of dental restorative composites. J Dent Res 61:1083-1088.

15.

Meier C. , Lutz F. ( 1979). Komposits kontra amalgam: vergleichende verschleissfestigkeitsmessungen in vivo: 1-jahres-resultate. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilk 89:203-212.

16.

Meier C. , Lutz F. ( 1980). Vergleichende verschleissfestigkeitsuntersuchungen in vivo zwischen amalgam und komposit: 2-jahres resultate. Dtsch Zahn rztl Z 35:489-492.

17.

Olver AV , Spikes HA , Bower AF , Johnson KL (1986). The residual stress distribution in a plastically deformed model asperity. Wear 107:151-174.

18.

Roulet J. -F (1987). Degradation of dental polymers. Basel (Switzerland): Karger.

19.

Roulet J. -F (1988a). The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites. J Dent 16:101-113.

20.

Roulet J. -F (1988b). Werkstoffkundliche parameter und ihre auswirkung auf die klinik. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 43:887-892.

21.

Roulet J. -F, Mettler P. , Friedrick U. (1980). Studie über die abrasion von komposits im seitenzahnbereich-resultate nach 3 jahren. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 35:493-497.

22.

Sakaguchi RL , Douglas WH , DeLong R. , Pintado MR (1986). The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 2:235-240.

23.

Vanherle G. , Lambrechts P. , Braem M. (1989). Erfahrungen mit kompositfüllungsmaterialien im seitenzahnbereich. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 44:664-668.

24.

Wilson Nhf , Wilson MA , Wastell DG , Smith GA (1988). A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: five-year results. Quint Int 19:675-681.

25.

Zwicky C. (1991). In-vivo-verschleissfestigkeitsverhalten von amalgamfüllungen (thesis). Zürich (Switzerland): Zahnärztliches Institut der Universitat.