Hardness and in vitro wear of a novel ceramic restorative cement

European journal of oral sciences

Volumn 110, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 175-178

  Sunnegàrdh Grönberg, Karin ^a   Peutzfeldt, Anne ^b   van Dijken, Jan W V ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM DERIVATIVE; CALCIUM ALUMINATE; CALCIUM DERIVATIVE; COMPOMER; DOXADENT; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN; TOOTH CEMENT; ZINC PHOSPHATE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CERAMICS; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL SURGERY; GEL; HARDNESS; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ALUMINUM COMPOUNDS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CALCIUM COMPOUNDS; CERAMICS; COMPOMERS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CEMENTS; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; GELS; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HARDNESS; MATERIALS TESTING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; ZINC PHOSPHATE CEMENT;

EID: 0036546310     PISSN: 09098836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.11226.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 1 De Gee AJ, Pallav P. Occlusal wear simulation with the ACTA wear machine. J Dent 1994 ; 22: 21–27.
2. 2 Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Shinkai K. Wear resistance of resin cements. Am J Dent 1995 ; 8: 83–87.
3. 3 Condon JR, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi‐mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater 1996 ; 12: 218–226.
4. 4 Pelka ME, Schneider H, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Comparison of two‐ and three‐body wear of glass‐ionomers and composites. Eur J Oral Sci 1996 ; 104: 132–137.
5. 5 Teoh SH, Ong LFKL, Yap AUJ, Hastings GW. Bruxing‐type dental wear simulator for ranking of dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1998 ; 43: 175–183.
6. 6 Marquis PM, Hu X, Shortall AC. Two‐body wear of dental composites under different loads. Int J Prosthet 2000 ; 13: 473–479.
7. 7 Finger W, Thiemann J. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo wear of posterior restorative materials. Dent Mater 1987 ; 3: 280–286.
8. 8 De Gee AJ, Pallav P, Davidson CL. Effect of abrasion medium on wear of stress‐bearing composites and amalgam in vitro. J Dent Res 1986 ; 65: 654–658.
9. 9 Pallav P, De Gee AJ, Werner A, Davidson CL. Influence of shearing action of food on contact stress and subsequent wear of stress‐bearing composites. J Dent Res 1993 ; 72: 56–61.
10. 10 Hald A. Statistical theory with engineering applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952.
11. 11 Bruning JL, Kintz BL. Computational handbook of statistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Forseman & Co, 1997.
12. 12 Habelitz S, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Balooch M. Mechanical properties of human dental enamel on the nanometer scale. Arch Oral Biol 2001 ; 46: 173–183.
13. 13 Hegdahl T, Hagebö T. The load dependence in micro indentation hardness testing of enamel and dentin. Scand J Dent Res 1972 ; 80: 449–452.
14. 14 Phillips RW. Skinner's science of dental materials, 7th edition. London: W.B. Saunders Co, 1973 ; 42–47.
15. 15 Morena T, Lockwood PE, Fairhurst CW. Fracture toughness of commercial dental porcelains. Dent Mater 1986 ; 2: 58–62.
16. 16 Peutzfeldt A, Garcia‐Godoy F, Asmussen E. Surface hardness and wear of glass ionomers and compomers. Am J Dent 1997 ; 10: 15–17.
17. 17 Manhart J, Kunzelmann K‐H, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behaviour of light‐cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000 ; 16: 33–40.
18. 18 De Gee AJ, Van Duinen RNB, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long‐term wear of conventional and resin‐modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res 1996 ; 75: 1613–1619.
19. 19 Latta MA, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM, Blake SM. Localized wear of compomer restorative materials. Am J Dent 2001 ; 14: 238–240.
20. 20 Pluim LJ. The solubility of dental luting cement. Dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 1985.
21. 21 Philips RW, Swartz ML, Lund MS, Moore BK, Vicker J. In vivo disintegration of luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1987 ; 114: 489–492.
22. 22 Hersek N, Canay S. In vivo solubility of three types of luting cement. Quintessence Int 1996 ; 27: 211–216.
23. 23 Buchalla W, Attin T, Hellwig E. Brushing abrasion of luting cements under neutral and acidic conditions. Oper Dent 2000 ; 25: 482–487.
24. 24 Pallav P, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ. Wear rates of composites, an amalgam, and enamel under stress‐bearing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 1988 ; 59: 426–429.