J Med Dent Sci 2012595356

Background Although attritive and abrasive

wear of recent composi te resi ns has been
substantially reduced, in vitro wear testing with
reasonably simulating devices and quantitative
determination of resulting wear is still needed.
Three- di mensi onal scanni ng met hods are
frequently used for this purpose. The aim of this
trial was to compare maximum depth of wear and
volume loss of composite samples, evaluated with
a contact profilometer and a non-contact CCD
camera imaging system, respectively.
Method Twenty- three random composi te
specimens with wear traces produced in a ball-on-
disc sliding device, using poppy seed slurry and
PMMA suspension as third-body media, were
evaluated with the contact profilometer (TalyScan
150, Taylor Hobson LTD, Leicester, UK) and with
the digital CCD microscope (VHX1000, KEYENCE,
Osaka, Japan). The target parameters were
maximum depth of the wear and volume loss.
Results The individual time of measurement
needed with the non-contact CCD method was
almost three hours less than that with the contact
method. Both, maximum depth of wear and volume
loss data, recorded with the two methods were
linearly correlated (r
2
> 0.97; p< 0.01).
Conclusion The contact scanning method and
the non-contact CCD method are equally suitable
for determination of maximum depth of wear and
volume loss of abraded composite resins.
Key words:Composite resin, Wear, Profilometry, CCD-
imaging
Introduction
During recent years numerous composite resins,
indicated for restoration of all cavity classes, were
introduced to the dental market, differing from previous
brands in monomer composition, yet particularly in
reduced filler size. It is likely that the size of filler
particles might affect clinical performance, as smaller
particles result in less interparticle spacing and
thus better protection of the surrounding polymer
matrix
1, 2, 3
. It is however questionable whether or not
the common concept of combining nano-sized particles
with more conventional fillers, as in several of the
current nanohybrid composites, is an adequate means
to prevent plucking of the larger filler particles
4
. Filler
refinement is considered the main reason for reduced
abrasive wear. Long-term clinical trials have shown that
filler refined composites perform satisfactorily when
used in standard class / cavities; unacceptably
high wear was only observed in occlusal contact
areas of patients with severe bruxism
5, 6
. In spite of
such encouraging results, especially in vivo, yet also
Corresponding Author: Hidekazu Takahashi
Oral Biomaterials Engineering, Course of Oral Health Engineering,
School of Oral Health Care Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo
Medical and Dental University 1-5-45, Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo,
113-8549, Japan.
Tel: +81-3-5803-5379Fax: +81-3-5803-5379
E-mail: takahashi.bmoe@tmd.ac.jp
Received November 7, 2011Accepted March 9, 2012
Original Article
Quantification of in vitro produced wear sites on composite resins using contact
profilometry and CCD microscopy: A methodological investigation
Natthavoot Koottathape
1)
, Hidekazu Takahashi
2)
, Werner J. Finger
3)
, Masafumi Kanehira
3)
,
Naohiko Iwasaki
2)
and Yujin Aoyagi
4)
1) Advanced Biomaterials, Department of Restorative Sciences, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate
School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo
2) Oral Biomaterials Engineering, Course of Oral Health Engineering, School of Oral Health Care Sciences,
Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
3) Division of Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai
4) Department of Dental Materials Sciences, Kanagawa Dental College, Yokosuka
54 J Med Dent Sci N. Koottathape et al.
in vitro wear studies are still needed
7
, although in vitro
models cannot satisfactorily simulate the complex
clinical conditions
8
. Apart from the question how to
simulate wear, it is important to decide how to measure
wear. Among the numerous methods of measuring
wear three-dimensional (3-D) scanning is probably the
most adequate approach, since quantitative data may
be generated, including volume loss, depth and area
of wear
9
. Three-dimensional scanners are operating
either in contact or in non-contact mode. With contact
scanners the target surface is recorded by a number
of parallel line traces that are finally put together to
digitize the surface. Non-contact profilers, in contrast,
digitize the surface by a light-source or microscope
focused on the surface.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate
and compare wear traces on flat composite resin
specimens that were produced with a zirconia ball-
sliding wear testing device, using contact profilometry
and 3D imaging with a digital charge coupled device
(CCD) microscope for determination of maximum depth
of wear and volume loss. The research hypothesis was
that wear data determined with the two evaluation
methods would not yield significantly different results.
Materials and Methods
From an ongoing investigation on wear characteristics
of microfilled (DUR), nano-hybrid (MFL) and micro-hybrid
(APX) composite resins 23 abraded specimens were
randomly selected for comparative measurements of
wear traces, produced with a custom-made sliding
ball wear testing device
10
. The composite resins
used in the present study are shown in Table I. Disc-
shaped specimens, 8 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick,
were produced in aluminum molds, light-activated
using the halogen curing unit XL 3000 (3M ESPE,
MN, USA; output >500 mW cm
-2
) for 40 seconds,
and stored in 37 deionized water for 7 days and
consecutively polished with SiC paper to the final grit
#4000. A zirconia ball (4-mm in diameter) served as
antagonist, loading the composite specimen at 15
angulation for a 3.7 mm long slide path (50 N load,
1.2 Hz, 10,000 cycles). During loading the specimens
were immersed in third-body media, either aqueous
slurry of slightly preground poppy seeds (33 mass%)
or aqueous suspension of PMMA beads (30 mass%).
The numbers of the composite resins evaluated for this
methodological study are listed in Table . The samples
were carefully rinsed and stored for at least another 7
days in 37 water prior to determination of wear.
Each sample was scanned with a contact profilometer
(TalyScan 150, Taylor Hobson LTD, Leicester, UK) at 3
mm/s scanning rate with 5 m intervals between the
scanning lines. The profilometer stylus had a 2.0 m tip
radius and the force on the stylus was 0.98 mN. The
specified vertical resolution of the inductive probe is
0.06 m.
Then, the same specimen was scanned with a digital
CCD microscope at 100-fold magnification (VHX1000
with VH-Z 100R lens, KEYENCE, Osaka, Japan) at 5 m
intervals along the z-axis. Samples were randomly first
scanned with the contact or the non-contact device.
With both methods, the specimens reference planes
were adjusted using three points on the non-abraded
site. Small ridge-like elevations seen next to the wear
trace, probably due to plastic deformation under the
action of the sliding ball, were disregarded for the
software-produced calculation of maximum depth and
volume loss of the wear trace by manually aligning the
reference plane.
The bivariate data for maximum depth of wear and
volume loss, determined with the two methods, were
statistically treated by regression analysis using
statistical software (SPSS Statistics ver.17, SAS, Cary,
NC, USA).
Table .Composite resins and number of specimens evaluated for 3-body wear.
Material Shade Type Manufacturer Batch Code
Number of specimen
poppy seeds PMMA beads
Durafill VS A3 microfilled
Heraeus Kulzer,
Hanau, Germany
010210 DUR 3 3
MI Flow A3
nano-
hybrid
GC Corp.,
Tokyo, Japan
0904132 MFL 5 4
Clearfil AP-X A2
micro-
hybrid
Kuraray Medical,
Okayama, Japan
1078A APX 5 3
55 Composite resin quantitative evaluation of wear
Results
Regarding the contact profilometer measurement,
scanning time for tracing the wear path of each
specimen was approximately 3 hours, additionally 45
minutes were needed for wear quantification. In
contrast, with the CCD microscope the scanning and
quantification times for each specimen were 30 minutes
and 30 minutes, respectively. Typical wear trace
images obtained with the contact profilometer and the
CCD microscope are shown in Fig 1. Figure 2 shows the
relationship between the maximum wear depths, Fig. 3
the relationship between the volume losses, recorded
with the two scanning methods, respectively. Each
bivariate point in the diagrams reflects wear of one
composite resin specimen, abraded with one of the
abrasive slurries. The maximum wear depths and
volume loss values of DUR in poppy seed slurry and
APX in PMMA beads suspension were relatively large,
whereas those of APX and MFL in poppy seed slurry
were relatively small. Linear regressions lines were
fitted using the least square approach, and the 95%
confidence intervals for mean response were drawn
around the regressi on l i nes. The coeffi ci ents of
determination, r
2
, for both correlations were highly
significant.
Discussion
This study aimed at comparing maximum depth and
volume loss of wears traces, produced on composite resin
surfaces using contact and non-contact profilometers.
The research hypothesis that wear data determined
with the two evaluation methods would not yield
significantly different results is accepted. Thus, both
methods seem to be equally suitable to quantify wear.
Figure 1:Wear traces scanned by a contact profilometer (A) and
a digital CCD microscope (B).
Figure 2:Relationship between maximum wear depth (m)
recorded by a contact profilometer (PFM) and a digital CCD
microscope. Linear regression line and 95% confidence interval for
mean response (dashed lines).
Figure 3:Relationship between volume loss (mm
3
) recorded by a
contact profilometer (PFM) and a digital CCD microscope. Linear
regression line and 95% confidence interval for mean response
(dashed lines).
56 J Med Dent Sci N. Koottathape et al.
Interestingly, the amounts of wear recorded varied
not only with the composite resin types but also with
the third-body media used. Effects of different types of
composite resins and third-body media on wear will be
investigated and discussed in future studies.
A common problem encountered with both methods
was the necessity for manual alignment of the flat
reference plane, to define the wear trace margin by
eliminating the marginal ridge, likely produced by plastic
deformation of the resins.
The contact profilometer method has the disadvantage,
that stylus tracking, depending on the stylus geometry
and load, might deform the surface of the material. This
is primarily important for materials with low rigidity.
Although composites with very different moduli of
elasticity, such as the microfilled brand on the one
hand, and the micro-hybrid type on the other hand were
used, this effect was apparently without practical
significance, as shown by the stringent correlations
with the CCD data. The disadvantage of the CCD
method, where a light beam is used as the stylus, is
the transparency of the composite. Basically, the
method requires an opaque diffuse reflecting surface.
The shades of the composite specimens used in this
trial were A3 and A2, according to the Vita scale. The
stringent correlations with the contact profilometer
readings show, that the materials were apparently
sufficiently opaque.
Regarding the scanning and wear quantification
times, contact profilometer measurements were more
time consuming compared with the CCD microscope
measurements. The scanning time was 6 times longer
and wear quantification time was 1.5 times longer.
Thus, non-contact CCD measurements were almost
three hours faster.
The relative measuring error encountered with both
methods becomes obviously larger with decreasing
wear traces, as unequivocal definition of the trace
margin is a challenge. Therefore, a sufficiently large
number of loading cycles should be selected with in
vitro evaluations. Future studies will have to reveal the
effect of the changing contact areas between the
antagonist cusp, here the zirconia ball, and the resulting
stress exerted on the specimen surface.
Within the limitation of this in vitro trial, it is concluded
that the contact profilometer method and the non-
contact CCD method are both equally suitable for
determination of depth of wear and volume loss of in
vitro produced wear traces on composite resins. From
a practical view, CCD microscopy is the preferred
routine method, since measurements are contact-free,
relatively easy and fast.
References
1. Kahler B, Kotousov A, Swain MV. On the design of dental
resin-based composites: A micromechanical approach.
Acta Biomater 2008; 4: 165-172.
2. Soh MS, Sellinger A, Yap AU. Dental nanocomposites.
Current Nanoscience 2006; 2: 373-381.
3. Ferracane JL. Resin composite State of the art. Dent
Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.
4. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Ferracane LL. Wear and fatigue
behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J
Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 2006; 78: 196-
203.
5. Van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an
11-year follow-up. J Dent 2000; 28: 299-306.
6. Kramer N, Reinelt C, Richter G et al. Nanohybrid vs. fine
particle composite in class cavities: clinical results and
marginal analysis after four years. Dent Mater 2009; 25:
750-759.
7. Ferracane JL. Is the wear of dental composites still a
clinical concern? Is there still a need for in vitro wear
simulating devices? Dent Mater 2006; 22: 689-692.
8. Lambrechts P, Debels E, van Landuyt K et al. How to
simulate wear? Overview of existing methods. Dent Mater
2006; 22: 693-701.
9. DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: Rethinking
the current approaches: How to measure wear. Dent
Mater 2006; 22: 702-711.
10. Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Koottathape N, Aoyagi Y.
Umemoto K. Experimental wear test machine using one-
axis robots. J J Dent Equip 2011; 16: 34-35.