Scholarlink

Background <p>Computer aided designed/ computer aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) materials offer diverse options for prosthetic rehabilitations, yet correlation between materials’ surface properties and aging through chewing simulation needs characterization. The aim of this study is to measure and evaluate the effect of three body wear on three CAD/CAM materials (poly methylmethacrylate (PMMA), composite resin and polyether ether ketone (PEEK)) regarding their microhardness and surface roughness.</p> Methods <p>Seventy-two disc-shaped specimens (20 × 6&#xa0;mm) were fabricated (<i>n</i> = 24/ group) from PMMA (Yamahachi PMMA Disk), Nano-ceramic Composite (Grandio Blocs, VOCO), and PEEK (BioHPP, Bredent). Specimens were subjected to 120,000 chewing cycles in a chewing simulator using a 3-body wear protocol with a pumice slurry. Wear volume (mm<sup>3</sup>) was measured digitally. Surface roughness (µm) and Vickers hardness (VHN) were evaluated twice: at baseline and within the wear facets post-simulation. Data were analyzed using Two-way and One-way ANOVA (<i>P</i>-value &lt; 0.05), and Pearson correlation was used to measure the relationship between properties.</p> Results <p>One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between material types (<i>P</i> = 0.000*), with composite exhibiting the lowest mean volume loss (0.08 mm<sup>3</sup>), significantly outperforming PEEK (0.23mm<sup>3</sup>) and PMMA (0.55 mm<sup>3</sup>). For surface roughness, a significant interaction was observed between material type and wear simulation (<i>P</i> = 0.000*), while there was no significant interaction between them on surface hardness (<i>P</i> = 0.89). Composite significantly outperformed PEEK and PMMA regarding all tested properties.</p> Conclusion <p>The 3-body wear simulation induced significantly different volumetric loss across all groups, with the magnitude of loss largely dependent on the material’s specific composition and baseline hardness. In addition, the surface roughness and microhardness of three investigated materials were considerably impacted by three-body wear. PMMA have the lowest wear resistance, lowest microhardness, and the greatest surface roughness both before and after wear, while composites with high filler loading and high microhardness have the highest wear resistance followed by PEEK. After wear, the surface roughness of the composite is acceptable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of three-body wear on the surface properties of different polymer-based CAD/CAM dental restorative and prosthetic materials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Abdallah Fawzy Elsadany,
  • Hesham Samy Borg,
  • Enas A. Elshenawy

摘要

Background

Computer aided designed/ computer aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) materials offer diverse options for prosthetic rehabilitations, yet correlation between materials’ surface properties and aging through chewing simulation needs characterization. The aim of this study is to measure and evaluate the effect of three body wear on three CAD/CAM materials (poly methylmethacrylate (PMMA), composite resin and polyether ether ketone (PEEK)) regarding their microhardness and surface roughness.

Methods

Seventy-two disc-shaped specimens (20 × 6 mm) were fabricated (n = 24/ group) from PMMA (Yamahachi PMMA Disk), Nano-ceramic Composite (Grandio Blocs, VOCO), and PEEK (BioHPP, Bredent). Specimens were subjected to 120,000 chewing cycles in a chewing simulator using a 3-body wear protocol with a pumice slurry. Wear volume (mm3) was measured digitally. Surface roughness (µm) and Vickers hardness (VHN) were evaluated twice: at baseline and within the wear facets post-simulation. Data were analyzed using Two-way and One-way ANOVA (P-value < 0.05), and Pearson correlation was used to measure the relationship between properties.

Results

One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between material types (P = 0.000*), with composite exhibiting the lowest mean volume loss (0.08 mm3), significantly outperforming PEEK (0.23mm3) and PMMA (0.55 mm3). For surface roughness, a significant interaction was observed between material type and wear simulation (P = 0.000*), while there was no significant interaction between them on surface hardness (P = 0.89). Composite significantly outperformed PEEK and PMMA regarding all tested properties.

Conclusion

The 3-body wear simulation induced significantly different volumetric loss across all groups, with the magnitude of loss largely dependent on the material’s specific composition and baseline hardness. In addition, the surface roughness and microhardness of three investigated materials were considerably impacted by three-body wear. PMMA have the lowest wear resistance, lowest microhardness, and the greatest surface roughness both before and after wear, while composites with high filler loading and high microhardness have the highest wear resistance followed by PEEK. After wear, the surface roughness of the composite is acceptable.