Round robin test: Wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators - Supplement to the round robin test of 2005

S. D. Heintze, Wayne W. Barkmeier, Mark A. Latta, V. Rousson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to submit the same materials that were tested in the round robin wear test of 2002/2003 to the Alabama wear method. Methods: Nine restorative materials, seven composites (belleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar, SureFil, Targis, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (IPS Empress) have been submitted to the Alabama wear method for localized and generalized wear. The test centre did not know which brand they were testing. Both volumetric and vertical loss had been determined with an optical sensor. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test centre, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. Results: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centres. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA, IVOCLAR and ALABAMA localized the highest. Material-wise, the best global performance was achieved by the leucite reinforced ceramic material Empress, which was clearly ahead of belleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by SureFil, Tetric Ceram and Chromasit, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar was poor. When comparing the laboratory data with clinical data, a significant agreement was found for the IVOCLAR and ALABAMA generalized wear method. Significance: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

Original languageEnglish
JournalDental Materials
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2011

Fingerprint

Dental materials
Dental Materials
Songbirds
Simulators
Wear of materials
Mercury amalgams
Statistical Data Interpretation
Optical sensors
Ceramic materials
Wear resistance
Statistical methods

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

@article{7eebac08bbd74264a048bac1ab710ac1,
title = "Round robin test: Wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators - Supplement to the round robin test of 2005",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of the present study was to submit the same materials that were tested in the round robin wear test of 2002/2003 to the Alabama wear method. Methods: Nine restorative materials, seven composites (belleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar, SureFil, Targis, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (IPS Empress) have been submitted to the Alabama wear method for localized and generalized wear. The test centre did not know which brand they were testing. Both volumetric and vertical loss had been determined with an optical sensor. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test centre, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. Results: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centres. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA, IVOCLAR and ALABAMA localized the highest. Material-wise, the best global performance was achieved by the leucite reinforced ceramic material Empress, which was clearly ahead of belleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by SureFil, Tetric Ceram and Chromasit, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar was poor. When comparing the laboratory data with clinical data, a significant agreement was found for the IVOCLAR and ALABAMA generalized wear method. Significance: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.",
author = "Heintze, {S. D.} and Barkmeier, {Wayne W.} and Latta, {Mark A.} and V. Rousson",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.003",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
journal = "Dental Materials",
issn = "0109-5641",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Round robin test

T2 - Wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators - Supplement to the round robin test of 2005

AU - Heintze, S. D.

AU - Barkmeier, Wayne W.

AU - Latta, Mark A.

AU - Rousson, V.

PY - 2011/2

Y1 - 2011/2

N2 - Objective: The purpose of the present study was to submit the same materials that were tested in the round robin wear test of 2002/2003 to the Alabama wear method. Methods: Nine restorative materials, seven composites (belleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar, SureFil, Targis, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (IPS Empress) have been submitted to the Alabama wear method for localized and generalized wear. The test centre did not know which brand they were testing. Both volumetric and vertical loss had been determined with an optical sensor. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test centre, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. Results: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centres. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA, IVOCLAR and ALABAMA localized the highest. Material-wise, the best global performance was achieved by the leucite reinforced ceramic material Empress, which was clearly ahead of belleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by SureFil, Tetric Ceram and Chromasit, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar was poor. When comparing the laboratory data with clinical data, a significant agreement was found for the IVOCLAR and ALABAMA generalized wear method. Significance: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

AB - Objective: The purpose of the present study was to submit the same materials that were tested in the round robin wear test of 2002/2003 to the Alabama wear method. Methods: Nine restorative materials, seven composites (belleGlass, Chromasit, Estenia, Heliomolar, SureFil, Targis, Tetric Ceram) an amalgam (Amalcap) and a ceramic (IPS Empress) have been submitted to the Alabama wear method for localized and generalized wear. The test centre did not know which brand they were testing. Both volumetric and vertical loss had been determined with an optical sensor. After completion of the wear test, the raw data were sent to IVOCLAR for further analysis. The statistical analysis of the data included logarithmic transformation of the data, the calculation of relative ranks of each material within each test centre, measures of agreement between methods, the discrimination power and coefficient of variation of each method as well as measures of the consistency and global performance for each material. Results: Relative ranks of the materials varied tremendously between the test centres. When all materials were taken into account and the test methods compared with each other, only ACTA agreed reasonably well with two other methods, i.e. OHSU and ZURICH. On the other hand, MUNICH did not agree with the other methods at all. The ZURICH method showed the lowest discrimination power, ACTA, IVOCLAR and ALABAMA localized the highest. Material-wise, the best global performance was achieved by the leucite reinforced ceramic material Empress, which was clearly ahead of belleGlass, SureFil and Estenia. In contrast, Heliomolar, Tetric Ceram and especially Chromasit demonstrated a poor global performance. The best consistency was achieved by SureFil, Tetric Ceram and Chromasit, whereas the consistency of Amalcap and Heliomolar was poor. When comparing the laboratory data with clinical data, a significant agreement was found for the IVOCLAR and ALABAMA generalized wear method. Significance: As the different wear simulator settings measure different wear mechanisms, it seems reasonable to combine at least two different wear settings to assess the wear resistance of a new material.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651229388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651229388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 20888629

AN - SCOPUS:78651229388

VL - 27

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

SN - 0109-5641

IS - 2

ER -