World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Wear Characteristics of Some Modern Dental Materials due to the Main Physical Characteristics during the Masticatory Process

Beshtau A Kudzaev, Anna A Remizova, Rita V Kalagova

Keywords : Chewing machine, Group of composites trinia and ambarino, Group of metals ZrO2 and Zirkonia Prettau, Group of polymers PEEK and PMMA, Wear resistance of dental materials

Citation Information : Kudzaev BA, Remizova AA, Kalagova RV. Comparative Wear Characteristics of Some Modern Dental Materials due to the Main Physical Characteristics during the Masticatory Process. World J Dent 2021; 12 (5):357-362.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1855

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: To design a simple low weight and energy consumption chewing machine, able to implement main characteristics of the masticatory process during testing and study some modern materials from various groups: polymers, composites, and metals. Materials and methods: A chewing machine that allowed imitating to a high degree of approximation to the real masticatory process in an abrasive medium the movement of test dental crowns made of polymers PEEK and PMMA, metals ZrO2 and Zirconia Prettau, and composites Trinia and Ambarino was designed for research. Dental crowns made of the test material were glued to incisal pins, which were screwed into the rods fixed on the carriage. The lower rods with the attached incisal pins and dental crowns were placed in a container with abrasive material. The carriage, alongside the rods and incisal pins with crowns, performed the reciprocating motion, for which a slider-crank mechanism with an electric drive was used. The press force on the test samples during each cycle was controlled using strain-gauge instrumentation and recorded in the computer memory. Results: It was found that at the end of the study, the difference between relative changes before and after the experiment in the weight of dental crowns made of Trinia composite was 5.32% less than dental crowns made of Ambarino; PMMA polymer was 6.057% less than dental crowns made of PEEK; zirconium dioxide ZrO2 was 0.46% less than dental crowns made of Prettau zirconium. Conclusion: An effective design of low energy consumption and weight chewing machine has been developed, which helped to study the wear resistance of some widely used materials. Clinical significance: The research findings allow a more reasonable approach to the choice of materials to develop various dental structures.


PDF Share
  1. Takei E, Kulvaanich S, Tsujimura T, et al. Age-related changes in functional adaptation to bolus characteristics during chewing. Physiol Behav 2020;225:113102. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113102.
  2. Kugimiya Y, Watanabe Y, Shirobe M, et al. A comparison of colorimetric and visual methods for the assessment of masticatory performance with color-changeable chewing gum in older persons. J Dent Sci 2020(1): In press, corrected proof, Available online 10.1016/j.jds.2020.08.010.
  3. Kassim S. The impact of protective psychosocial factors on khat chewing among male medical and dental future health-care providers in Yemen. 2020(4): In press, corrected proof, Available online 10.1016/j.jds.2019.08.009.
  4. Al-Duais MA, Al-Awthan YS. Association between qat chewing and dyslipidaemia among young males. J Taibah Univers Med Sci 2019;14(6):538–546. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.09.008.
  5. Miguel-Kergoat S, Azais-Braesco V, Burton-Freeman B, et al. Effects of chewing on appetite, food intake and gut hormones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiol Behav 2015;151:88–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.07.017.
  6. Xu WL, Lewis D, Bronlund JE, et al. Mechanism, design and motion control of linkage chewing device for food evalution. Mechan Machine Theory 2008;43(3):376–389. DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.03.004.
  7. Wimmer T, Mildred A, Huffmann O, et al. Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: Effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mat 2016;32(6):e127–e136. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.005.
  8. Avanzini A, Dnzella G, Mazzu A, et al. Wear and rolling contact fatigue of PEEK and PEEK composites. Tribol Int 2013;57:22–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2012.07.007.
  9. Liu Y, Song S, Timmers H. Correlation of polymer wear-debris generation between microscratching and macroscopic wear. Tribol Int 2016;93(part A):202–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2015. 09.010.
  10. Kwon M-S, Oh S-Y, Cho S-A. Two-body wear comparison of zirconia crown, gold crown, and enamel against zirconia. J Mechan Behav Biomed Mat 2015;47:21–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.11.029.
  11. Kim M-J, Oh S-H, Kim J-H, et al. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dentis 2012;40(11):979–988. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004.
  12. Zhang F, Spies BC, Vleugels J, et al. High-translucent yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics are wear-resistant and antagonist-friendly. Dent Mat 2019;35(12):1776–1790. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.009.
  13. Suzaki N, Yamaguchi S, Hirose N, et al. Evaluation of physical properties of fiber-reinforced composite resin. Dent Mat 2020;36(8):987–996. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.04.012.
  14. Zaparolli D, Peixoto RF, Pupim D, et al. Photoelastic analysis of mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures made with different bar materials and manufacturing techniques. Mat Sci Engineer: C 2017;81:144–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.07.052.
  15. Flury S, Diebold E, Peutzfeldt A, et al. Effect of artificial toothbrushing and water storage on the surface roughness and micromechanical properties of tooth-colored CAD-CAM materials. J Prosthe Detis 2017;117(6):767–774. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.034.
  16. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, et al. Wear evalution of prosthetic materials opposing themselves. Operat Dentis 2018;43(1):38–50. DOI: 10.2341/16-212-L.
  17. Hadi MR, Al-masoody AH, Bager Osamah A-M, et al. Evaluation of abrasive wear resistance of polymethylmethacrylate material reinforced with zirconium and dental stone. Drug Invention Today 2019;11(11):3081–3084.
  18. Khare N, Limaye PK, Soni NL, et al. Friction and wear characteristics of PEEK and PEEK composites in water lubricated slow speed sliding. Tribol Online 2015;10(1):1881–2198. DOI: 10.2474/trol.10.84.
  19. Melk L, Rovira JJ, Antti M-L, et al. Coefficient of friction and wear resistance of zirconia-MWCNTs composites. Ceram Int 2015;41(1):459–468. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.08.092.
  20. Emre G, Akkus A, Karamis MB. Wear resistance of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) with the addition of bone ash, hydroxylapatite and keratin. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Engineer 2018;295(1):012004. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/295/1/012004.
  21. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, et al. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel. J Prosthe Dentis 2016;115(3):350–355. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015. 09.010.
  22. Zandparsa R, Hiravama H, Jonson MI. Effect of different dental ceramic systems on the wear of human enamel: An in vitro study. J Prosthe Dentis 2016;115(2):230–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.005.
  23. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthe Dentis 112(5):1141–1150. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.