Digital versus Conventional Methods of Wear Analysis Using Two Different Hybrid Ceramic Materials: In-Vitro Study | ||||
| Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research | ||||
| Article 8, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2025, Page 26-39 PDF (254.95 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original research articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/jfcr.2025.301500.1085 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Fady Samy Labib Elsharouny   1; Tamer Hamza 2; Lomaya Ghanem 3
| ||||
| 1Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Dean of Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Badr University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 3Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Hybrid ceramic materials have been introduced resemble natural teeth appearance and behavior allowing minimal reduction using modified preparation techniques. Their wear behavior against natural teeth is still under investigation. Aim of the study: This present study aims to compare wear analysis using both conventional and digital methods regarding two hybrid ceramic materials against natural tooth antagonists. Materials and methods: A total of 26 Samples fabricated from Vita Emanic and Cerasmart 270 (n=13 each) were cut into discs of 2mm thickness and 10mm diameter, then tested for wear using conventional and digital techniques. All samples were subjected to chewing simulation. Conventional wear testing was carried out by evaluating weight loss before and after chewing simulation. Digital wear testing was carried out by using Geomagic software from superimposing scan images before and after chewing simulation. Scans were first obtained through Medit T710 desktop scanner. The generated data was collected and analyzed. Results: A positive correlation was found between conventional and digital measurements. There was a statistically significant difference between both materials in wear behavior. In both weight loss and digital superimposition methods, Vita Enamic displayed significantly higher amount of wear than Cerasmart 270 (p < 0.001); weight Vita Enamic and Cerasmart 270 respectively (22.12±3.41mg) (12.10±2.92mg), and RMS Vita Enamic and Cerasmart 270 respectively (0.82±0.24 µm), (0.52±0.15µm). Conclusion: Both conventional weight loss and digital volume loss can be used as reliable methods for assessing wear. Cerasmart 270 is more wear resistant than Vita Enamic. Keywords: Wear, Conventional wear analysis, Digital wear analysis, Hybrid ceramics. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Wear; Conventional wear analysis; Digital wear analysis; Hybrid ceramics | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 88 PDF Download: 76 |
||||
