Evaluation of a Method to Determine Wear Resistance of Class I Tooth Restorations During Cyclic Loading

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2022 Aug 12

PMID 35955375

Authors

Philipp Messer-Hannemann

Mariam Samadi

Henrik Bottcher

Sebastian Duy

Daniela Duy

Niclas Albrecht

Falk Schwendicke

Susanne Effenberger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was the development of a test regime to determine the wear resistance and predict the clinical performance of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in Class I tooth cavities. Cavities were prepared in excised human teeth and restored using three conventional glass ionomer restorative materials: DeltaFil, Fuji IX GP and Ketac Universal. The restored teeth were mechanically and thermally stressed using a chewing simulator with a maximum number of 1,200,000 load cycles. Besides determining the number of cycles achieved, the abrasion volume after termination of the chewing simulation was calculated using µCT images. All teeth restored with DeltaFil reached 1,200,000 cycles without any restoration failure. Only 37.5% of the restorations each with Ketac Universal and Fuji IX GP were able to achieve the maximum cycle number. A significant lower abrasion volume for restorations with DeltaFil compared to Ketac Universal ( = 0.0099) and Fuji IX GP ( = 0.0005) was found. Laboratory chewing simulations are a useful tool to study basic wear mechanisms in a controlled setting with in-vivo related parameters. DeltaFil shows an improved wear resistance compared to other conventional GICs, indicating the high potential of this material for long-lasting Class I restorations.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Wear Resistance in Glass Ionomer Cement through Green-mediated Chitosan-, Titanium-, Zirconium-, and Hydroxyapatite-based Nanocomposites: An Analysis before and after Chewing Simulator Endurance.

Sitaram S, Paulraj J, Maiti S, Shanmugam R Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2025; 17(11):1229-1235.

PMID: 39781388 PMC: 11703768. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2984.

Effects of Finishing on Surface Roughness of Four Different Glass-Ionomer Cements and One Alkasite: In Vitro Investigation over Time Using Aging Simulation.

Behlau A, Behlau I, Payer M, Leitinger G, Hanscho K, Kqiku L J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(11).

PMID: 39590529 PMC: 11595664. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15110325.

Evaluation of setting kinetics, mechanical strength, ion release, and cytotoxicity of high-strength glass ionomer cement contained elastomeric micelles.

Leenutaphong N, Phantumvanit P, Young A, Panpisut P BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):713.

PMID: 38902666 PMC: 11191184. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04468-3.

Concept of a Novel Glass Ionomer Restorative Material with Improved Mechanical Properties.

Messer-Hannemann P, Bottcher H, Henning S, Schwendicke F, Effenberger S J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(11).

PMID: 37998103 PMC: 10672254. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14110534.

References

Brzovic-Rajic V, Miletic I, Gurgan S, Peros K, Verzak Z, Ivanisevic-Malcic A . Fluoride Release from Glass Ionomer with Nano Filled Coat and Varnish. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019; 52(4):307-313. PMC: 6336447. DOI: 10.15644/asc52/4/4. View

Gosavi S, Gosavi S, Alla R . Local and systemic effects of unpolymerised monomers. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011; 7(2):82-7. PMC: 3177373. View

Wassell R, McCabe J, Walls A . A two-body frictional wear test. J Dent Res. 1994; 73(9):1546-53. DOI: 10.1177/00220345940730091001. View

Kumari P, Khijmatgar S, Chowdhury A, Lynch E, Chowdhury C . Factors influencing fluoride release in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) materials: A review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019; 9(4):315-320. PMC: 6624238. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.06.015. View

Deery C . Atraumatic restorative techniques could reduce discomfort in children receiving dental treatment. Evid Based Dent. 2005; 6(1):9. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400310. View

Heintze S, Ilie N, Hickel R, Reis A, Loguercio A, Rousson V . Laboratory mechanical parameters of composite resins and their relation to fractures and wear in clinical trials-A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2016; 33(3):e101-e114. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.013. View

Moberg M, Brewster J, Nicholson J, Roberts H . Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 23(3):1295-1308. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2554-3. View

Ngo H, Mount G, Mc Intyre J, Tuisuva J, Von Doussa R . Chemical exchange between glass-ionomer restorations and residual carious dentine in permanent molars: an in vivo study. J Dent. 2006; 34(8):608-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.12.012. View

Brzovic Rajic V, Ivanisevic Malcic A, Kutuk Z, Gurgan S, Jukic S, Miletic I . Compressive Strength of New Glass Ionomer Cement Technology based Restorative Materials after Thermocycling and Cyclic Loading. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020; 53(4):318-325. PMC: 6993471. DOI: 10.15644/asc53/4/2. View

10.

Frankenberger R, Dudek M, Winter J, Braun A, Kramer N, von Stein-Lausnitz M . Amalgam Alternatives Critically Evaluated: Effect of Long-term Thermomechanical Loading on Marginal Quality, Wear, and Fracture Behavior. J Adhes Dent. 2020; 22(1):107-116. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a44001. View

11.

Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Cabello I, Toledano-Osorio M, Aguilera F . In vitro mechanical stimulation facilitates stress dissipation and sealing ability at the conventional glass ionomer cement-dentin interface. J Dent. 2018; 73:61-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.006. View

12.

Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G . Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent. 2008; 36(12):1048-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.09.001. View

13.

Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A, Frankenberger R, Hickel R, Biffar R . Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials. 2016; 17(1):239. PMC: 4860258. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1339-8. View

14.

Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L . Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J. 2017; 37(2):293-300. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-161. View

15.

Fareed M, Stamboulis A . Nanoclay-Reinforced Glass-Ionomer Cements: In Vitro Wear Evaluation and Comparison by Two Wear-Test Methods. Dent J (Basel). 2018; 5(4). PMC: 5806966. DOI: 10.3390/dj5040028. View

16.

Ruse N, Troczynski T, MacEntee M, Feduik D . Novel fracture toughness test using a notchless triangular prism (NTP) specimen. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996; 31(4):457-63. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199608)31:4<457::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-K. View

17.

Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal J, Dursun E . Commercially Available Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials: A Review and a Proposal for Classification. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(10). PMC: 7287768. DOI: 10.3390/ma13102313. View

18.

Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F . Lithium Disilicate Restorations Fatigue Testing Parameters: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 25(2):116-26. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12376. View

19.

Heintze S, Zellweger G, Peschke A . Wear of an ion-releasing powder/liquid polymer resin in relation to that of glass-ionomer and conventional resin composites. Am J Dent. 2020; 33(4):171-177. View

20.

Krejci I, Reich T, LUTZ F, Albertoni M . [An in vitro test procedure for evaluating dental restoration systems. 1. A computer-controlled mastication simulator]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1990; 100(8):953-60. View