Wear Comparison of Indirect Restoratives Using Two Profiling Systems

Click on images to view full size.

Investigators have used various systems to assess wear generated by wear simulators. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine and compare wear measurements using two different profiling systems. Methods: Ten specimens each were fabricated for localized and generalized wear simulation using three indirect resin restorative materials: 1) Gradia(G), 2) Radica(R) and 3) Sinfony(S). The specimens were subjected to 400,000 cycles in a Leinfelder-Suzuki wear simulator (maximum load of 80N) using a stainless steel ball bearing stylus to generate localized wear(LW) and a flat stainless steel stylus for generalized wear(GW) in a water slurry of PMMA beads. Wear was determined using a contact profilometer(CP), MTS 3D Profiler with Capture and AnSur 3D software, and a non-contact profilometer(NCP), Proscan 2000 with Proscan and ProForm software. ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test and Pearson's correlation were used for analysis of the wear measurements. Results:

Measurements of wear depth and volume loss for both localized and generalized wear simulation were greater for the NCP when compared to the CP. Both profiling systems ranked GW wear in the same order and LW values were in the same order as GW for the CP system. Significant differences (p<0.05) between CP and NCP measurements were found for LW volume loss of R, GW mean depth of G, and GW volume loss of G and S. Pearson's correlation (r) of the CP and NCP values were as follows: LW–maximum depth 0.961, LW–volume loss 0.792, GW–mean depth 0.850 and GW–volume loss 0.847. Conclusions: The wear measurements of localized and generalized wear simulation of three indirect resin restoratives were greater with a non-contact profilometer when compared to a contact profilometer. The rank order of generalized wear for three indirect restoratives was the same with both measurement systems. Supported in-part by Dentsply/Prosthetics.