Simulated enamel wear during occlusal contact

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 373-377

  Suzuki, Shiro ^a  

^a Univ of Alabama School of Dentistry   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL CARE; ENAMEL; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MASTICATION; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; TOOTH DISEASE;

BITE FORCE; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MOLAR; TOOTH ABRASION;

EID: 16544388373     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ramfjord SP, Ash MM. Occlusion. 3rd ed, Philadelphia: Saunders, 1983.
2. Woda A, Gourdon AM, Faraj M. Occlusal contacts and tooth wear. J Prothet Dent 1987; 57:85-93.
3. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 1989; 68:1752-1754.
4. Whitehead SA, Lo LY, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Changes of surface texture of enamel in vivo. JOral Rehabil 1997; 24:449-453.
5. Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT, Heo SJ. A study of the efTects of chewing patterns on occlusal west. JOral Rehabil 2001; 28:1048-1055.
6. Lobbezoo F, Groenink WJ, Kranendonk AA, Aartman IH, Naeije M. A reliability study of clinical occlusal tooth wear measurements. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:881-882.
7. Molnar S, McKee JK, Molnar IM, Przybeck TR. Tooth wear rates among contemporaiy Australian Aborigines. J Dent Res 1983; 62:562-565.
8. Glentwotth P, Harrison A, Moores GE. Measurement of changes in surface profile due to wear using a 147Pm ß particle backscatter technique II: Application to the simulated wear of dental composite resin and amalgam restorations. Wear 1984; 93:53-62.
9. Noordmans J, Pluim LJ, Hummel J, Arends J, Bsseher HJ. A new profilometric method for determination of enamel and dentinal abrasion in vivo using computer comparison: A pilot study. Quintessence Int 1991; 22:653-657.
10. Smith BG, Robb ND. The prevalence of tooth wear in 1007 dental patients. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23:232-239.
11. Russell MD, Grant AA. The relationship of occlusal wear to occlusal contact area. J Oral Rehabil 1983; 10:383-391.
12. Pigno MA, Hatch JP, Rodrigues-Garcia RC, Sakai S, Rugh JD. Severity, distribution, and correlates of occlusal tooth wear in a sample of Mexican- American and European-American adults. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14:65-70.
13. Ekfeldt A, Hugoson A, Bergendal T, Helkimo M. An individual tooth wear index and an analysis of factors correlated to incisal and occlusal wear in an adult Swedish population. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48:343-349.
14. Hudson JD, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M. Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74:647-654.
15. Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of selected restorative materials on enamel. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22:275-281.
16. Ratledge DK, Smith BG, Wilson RF. The effect of restorative materials on the wear of human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:194-203.
17. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M. Wear of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: Restorations, opposing cusps, and luting cements. Quintessence Int 1994; 25:199-207.
18. Hacker CH, Wagner WC, Razzoog ME An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold m saliva. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 14-17.
19. Delong R, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. The wear of enamel opposing shaded ceramic restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:42-48.
20. Jacobi R, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. A comparison of the abrasiveness of six ceramic surfaces and gold. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66:303-309.
21. al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Smith GM, Gilmour WH. Investigation of human enamel wear against four dental ceramics and gold. J Dent 1998; 26:487-495.
22. Clelland NL, Agarwala V, Knobloch LA, Seghi RR. Wear of enamel opposing low-fusmg and conventional ceramic restorative materials. J Prosthodont 2001; 10:8-15.
23. al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Smith GM. Three-body wear associated with three ceramics and enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82:476-481.
24. Graf K, Johnson GH, Mehl A, Rammelsberg P. Enamel vs enamel. The influence of dental alloys on three-body wear of human enamel and dentin in an inlay-like situation. Oper Dent 2002; 27:167-174.
25. Kaidonis JA, Richards LC, Townsend GC, Tansley GD. Wear of human enamel: A quantitative in vitro assessment. J Dent Res 1998; 77:1983-1990.
26. Suzuki S, Suzuki SH, Cox CF. Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel. J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127: 74-80.
27. Imai Y, S. Suzuki, Fukushima S. In vitro enamel wear of modified porcelains, Am J Dent 2000; 13,315-323.
28. Suzuki S, Osbome JW, Leinfelder KF. Pre-clinical screening for wear of posterior composite resins. J Esthet Dent 1996; 8:263-268.
29. Leinfelder KF, Suzuki S. In vitro wear device for determining posterior composite wear. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130:1347-1353.
30. Palmer DS, Banco MT, Pelleu GB Jr, McKinney JE. Wear of human enamel against a commercial castable ceramic restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:192-195.
31. Ramp MH, Ramp LC, Suzuki S. Vertical height loss: An investigation of four restorative materials opposing enamel. J Prosthodont 1999; 8:252-257.
32. Krejci I, Albert P, Lutz F. The influence of antagonist standardization on wear. J Dent Res 1999; 78:713-719.
33. Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res 1991; 70:221-225.
34. Krejci I, Lutz F, Zedier C. Effect of contact area size on enamel and composite wear. J Dent Res 1992; 71:1413-1416.
35. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Chewing pressure vs. wear of composites and opposing enamel cusps. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 1525-1529.
36. Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW. A two-body frictional wear test. J Dent Res 1994; 73:1546-1553.
37. Shortall AC, Hu XQ, Marquis PM. Potential countersample materials for in vitro simulation wear testing. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 246-254.
38. Condon JR, Ferracane JL. Factors effecting dental composite wear in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 1997; 38: 303-313.
39. Eisenburger M, Addy M.Erosion and attrition of human enamel in vitro. Part I: Interaction effects. J Dent 2002; 30:341-347.
40. Eisenburger M, Addy M. Erosion and attrition of human enamel in vitro. Part II: Influence of time and loading. J Dent 2002; 30:349-352.
41. Berge M, Johannessen G, Silness J. Relationship between alignment conditions of teeth in anterior segments and incisal wear. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:717-721.
42. Maas MC. Enamel structure and micro wear: An experimental study of the response of enamel to shearing force. Am J Phys Anthropol 1991; 85:31-49.
43. Meredith N, Sherriff M, Setchell DJ, Swanson SA. Measurement of the microhardness and Young's modulus of human enamel and dentine using an indentation technique. Arch Oral Biol 1996; 41:539-545.
44. Douglas WH, Sakaguchi RL, De Long R. Frictional effects between natural teeth in an artificial mouth. Dent Mater 1985; 1:115-119.
45. Gel hard TB, Fidler V, s-Gravenmade EJ, Vissink A J. Remineralization of softened human enamel in mucinor CMC-containing artificial salivas. Oral Pathol 1983; 12:336-341.
46. Davidson JA, Poggie RA, Mishra AK.Abrasive wear of ceramic, metal, and UHMWPE bearing surfaces from third-body bone, PMMA bone cement, and titanium debris. Biomed Mater Eng 1994; 4:213-229.