Wear resistance and hardness of a polymethyl methacrylate pearls modified artificial resin tooth

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.06.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the wear resistance and hardness of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) pearls modified artificial resin tooth compared to five commercially available denture teeth.

Methods

Eight specimens of six different artificial resin teeth (3 highly cross-linked acrylic resin teeth: Vita Lingoform, Premium and Portrait IPN; 2 composite resin teeth: Yamahachi PX and Huge Kaiplus and 1 conventional acrylic resin teeth Yamahachi FX) were tested. One of the artificial resin teeth (Vita Lingoform) is a new PMMA pearls modified denture teeth. Human enamel was used as a control group. The specimens were mounted to a high temperature fretting abrasive tester with a pin-on-block design, and the vertical loss and volume loss of the samples were measured using three-dimensional surface profilometer. Hardness of the samples was determined using a micro-Vickers hardness tester. Data of wear loss and Vickers hardness were statistically analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis H nonparametric test and the Spearman correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between the wear loss (vertical loss and volume loss) and hardness.

Results

The six artificial resin teeth and human enamel tested showed significant differences in the vertical loss (μm) and volume loss (mm³×10^-3) (H_{vertical loss}= 95.01, H_{volume loss}= 93.96, P<0.001) . Vertical loss and volume loss of the PMMA pearls modified Vita Lingoform group (1.58, 1.377) were higher than those of composite resin teeth (1.01-1.06, 0.935-0.990, P<0.05) , but lower than that of conventional acrylic resin teeth Yamahachi FX (2.22, 1.983, P<0.001) . The Vita Lingoform group (37.2) showed intermediate hardness values, which are significantly lower than those of the composite resin groups (41.0-43.1, P<0.05) . The conventional acrylic resin teeth (25.9) demonstrated the lowest hardness values (P<0.001) . No significant differences for wear loss and Vickers hardness values were found between the Vita Lingoform and the other two highly cross-linked acrylic resin teeth Premium and Portrait IPN (P>0.05) . The human enamel group revealed the highest wear resistance and Vickers hardness values (0.31, 0.213; 68.2, P<0.001) among all the materials tested. Moreover, A negative relationship was found between hardness and vertical loss (r=-0.896) and volume loss (r=-0.893) .

Conclusions

The PMMA modified artificial resin teeth revealed improved wear resistance and hardness values compared to the conventional acrylic resin denture teeth. However, it showed less wear resistance and hardness values than the composite resin teeth and human enamel. No significant differences were found for the wear loss and hardness values among the three highly cross-linked artificial resin teeth.

Key words: Hardness, Artificial resin teeth, Wear resistance, Wear loss

Ke Liu, Zhichao Hao, Maoxia Wang, Yukun Meng. Wear resistance and hardness of a polymethyl methacrylate pearls modified artificial resin tooth[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2016, 10(06): 395-401.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2016.06.006

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V10/I06/395

Figures/Tables 6

References 20

[1]	Heintze SD, Zellweger G, Sbicego S，et al. Wear of two denture teeth materials in vivo—2-year results[J]. Dent Mater，2013，29(9):e191-e204.
[2]	Zeng J, Sato Y, Ohkubo C，et al. In vitro wear resistance of three types of composite resin denture teeth[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2005，94(5):453-457.
[3]	Nagarajan VS, Jahanmir S, Thompson VP. In vitro contact wear of dental composites[J]. Dent Mater，2004，20(1):63-71.
[4]	Stober T, Geiger A, Rues S，et al. Factors affecting wear of composite resin denture teeth—24-month results from a clinical study[J]. Clin Oral Investig，2012，16(2):413-420.
[5]	Schmid-Schwap M, Rousson V, Vornwagner K，et al. Wear of two artificial tooth materials in vivo：a 12-month pilot study[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2009，102(2):104-114.
[6]	Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips′ science of dental materials[M]. 12th Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences，2012：163-166.
[7]	Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT，et al. A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear[J]. J Oral Rehabil，2001，28(11):1048-1055.
[8]	Heintze SD, Rousson V, Stober T. Patient- and therapy-related factors on the wear of denture teeth—results of a clinical trial[J]. Dent Mater，2015，31(3):302-307.
[9]	Ghazal M, Yang B, Ludwig K，et al. Two-body wear of resin and ceramic denture teeth in comparison to human enamel[J]. Dent Mater，2008，24(4):502-507.
[10]	Ghazal M, Albashaireh ZS, Kern M. Wear resistance of nanofilled composite resin and feldspathic ceramic artificial teeth[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2008，100(6):441-448.
[11]	Stober T, Henninger M, Schmitter M，et al. Three-body wear of resin denture teeth with and without nanofillers[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2010，103(2):108-117.
[12]	Heintze SD, Zellweger G, Grunert I，et al. Laboratory methods for evaluating the wear of denture teeth and their correlation with clinical results[J]. Dent Mater，2012，28(3):261-272.
[13]	Loyaga-Rendon PG, Takahashi H, Hayakawa I，et al. Compositional characteristics and hardness of acrylic and composite resin artificial teeth[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2007，98(2):141-149.
[14]	Kamonwanon P, Yodmongkol S, Chantarachindawong R，et al. Wear resistance of a modified polymethyl methacrylate artificial tooth compared to five commercially available artificial tooth materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2015，114(2):286-292.
[15]	Suwannaroop P, Chaijareenont P, Koottathape N，et al. In vitro wear resistance，hardness and elastic modulus of artificial denture teeth[J]. Dent Mater J，2011，30(4):461-468.
[16]	Stober T, Lutz T, Gilde H，et al. Wear of resin denture teeth by two-body contact[J]. Dent Mater，2006，22(3):243-249.
[17]	Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vogel K. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites[J]. Biomaterials，2005，26(24):4932-4937.
[18]	Nihei T, Dabanoglu A, Teranaka T，et al. Three-body-wear resistance of the experimental composites containing filler treated with hydrophobic silane coupling agents[J]. Dent Mater，2008，24(6):760-764.
[19]	Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E，et al. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins[J]. J Prosthet Dent，2001，85(4):386-395.
[20]	Hahnel S, Schultz S, Trempler C，et al. Two-body wear of dental restorative materials[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater，2011，4(3):237-244.

树脂牙类型/缩写	组成成分	厂家
Vita Lingoform/VL	含PMMA微球的高交联树脂牙	VITA Zahnfabrik,德国
Premium/PR	MPM?PMMA	Heraeus Kulzer,德国
Portrait IPN/PI	IPN	Dentsply,美国
Huge Kaiplus/KP	合成树脂牙	沪鸽齿科材料有限公司
Yamahachi PX/YP	合成树脂牙	Yamahachi Dental Mfg,日本
Yamahachi FX/YF	PMMA	Yamahachi Dental Mfg,日本

树脂牙类型/缩写	组成成分	厂家
Vita Lingoform/VL	含PMMA微球的高交联树脂牙	VITA Zahnfabrik,德国
Premium/PR	MPM?PMMA	Heraeus Kulzer,德国
Portrait IPN/PI	IPN	Dentsply,美国
Huge Kaiplus/KP	合成树脂牙	沪鸽齿科材料有限公司
Yamahachi PX/YP	合成树脂牙	Yamahachi Dental Mfg,日本
Yamahachi FX/YF	PMMA	Yamahachi Dental Mfg,日本

材料类型	深度损失（μm）	体积损失(mm³ × 10^-3)
Vita Lingoform	1.58 ± 0.10	1.377 ± 0.015
Premium	1.64 ± 0.06	1.409 ± 0.065
Portrait IPN	1.57 ± 0.10	1.360 ± 0.058
Huge Kaiplus	1.01 ± 0.02	0.935 ± 0.048
Yamahachi PX	1.06 ± 0.05	0.990 ± 0.054
Yamahachi FX	2.22 ± 0.79	1.983 ± 0.177
牙釉质	0.31 ± 0.04	0.213 ± 0.041

材料类型	深度损失（μm）	体积损失(mm³ × 10^-3)
Vita Lingoform	1.58 ± 0.10	1.377 ± 0.015
Premium	1.64 ± 0.06	1.409 ± 0.065
Portrait IPN	1.57 ± 0.10	1.360 ± 0.058
Huge Kaiplus	1.01 ± 0.02	0.935 ± 0.048
Yamahachi PX	1.06 ± 0.05	0.990 ± 0.054
Yamahachi FX	2.22 ± 0.79	1.983 ± 0.177
牙釉质	0.31 ± 0.04	0.213 ± 0.041

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export