In Vitro Wear of Nano-Composite Denture Teeth

PURPOSE: Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.     

Multiple Implants for First Molar Prosthodontics

Problems that can occur when single implants are utilized to restore first molar teeth include the frequent loosening of screws, as well as screws and/or implant breakage. These may result from torquing and rotational movements of the prosthesis during masticatory and parafunctional mandibular movements. When sufficient bone and mesio-distal restorative space is present, the placement of two implants should be considered.     

Surface treatment of indirect resin composite surfaces before cementation

Statement of problem. Controversy surrounds the use of hydrofluoric acid to prepare precementation surfaces of indirect composites.Purpose. This study was conducted to compare effects of combining hydrofluoric or orthophosphoric acid with microetching as precementation treatments.Material and methods. Nine specimens of three composite materials were prepared to simulate heat-cured indirect restorations. The specimen surfaces were prepared with one of three treatments. Adhesive Bond II and Twinlook cements were used to bond a phosphoric acid-etched disk of P50 to the treated surface. Analysis of variance and Scheffé tests were used to assess the bond strength data. Scanning electron microscopy and microscopic analysis of the fractured and treated surfaces were also performed.Results. Bond strengths for all surface treatments did not significantly differ. Hybrids had a higher bond strength with etching than microfills, and mechanical roughening produced the greatest bond strengths with microfills. Microetching with orthophosphoric acid produced higher bond strengths than microetching with hydrofluoric acid on hybrids.Conclusions. Acid etching alone is not sufficient to produce effective bond strengths, and hydrofluoric acid treatments are detrimental to the resin composite. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:568-72.)