Farklı CAD/CAM materyallerinin fırçalama simülatörü sonrası aşınma ve yüzey pürüzlülüğünün değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Çiğneme, diş fırçalama ve parafonksiyonel alışkanlıklar, restoratif materyallerde aşınma ve yüzey pürüzlülüğünü artırarak restorasyonların uzun ömürlülüğünü doğrudan etkileyebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı kimyasal bileşimlere sahip CAD/CAM seramiklerinin beş yıllık diş fırçalama simülasyonu sonrasında aşınma miktarı ve yüzey pürüzlülüğünü değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Feldspatik seramik (Vita Mark II), zirkonya ile güçlendirilmiş lityum silikat (Vita Suprinity), polimer infiltrasyonlu hibrit seramik (Vita Enamic) ve rezin nano-seramik (Brilliant Crios) blokları kullanıldı. Örnekler 2 mm kalınlığında kesildi. Vita Mark II, Vita Suprinity ve Vita Enamic örnekleri glaze uygulanırken, Brilliant Crios örnekleri üretici talimatlarına göre polisajlandı. Bilgisayar kontrollü diş fırçalama simülatörü 20 mm ileri–geri hareket, 1,25 Hz frekans ve 3 N kuvvetle uygulandı. Toplam 36.500 siklus ile beş yıllık fırçalama simüle edildi. Yüzey pürüzlülüğü, birinci, üçüncü ve beşinci yıllarda 2D kontakt profilometre ve 3D optik profilometre ile ölçüldü; aşınma ise hassas terazi ile belirlendi. Bulgular: Aşınma açısından Vita Suprinity ile Vita Enamic ve Brilliant Crios arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0,05). Aşınma miktarı en düşükten en yükseğe doğru: Vita Suprinity, Vita Mark II, Vita Enamic ve Brilliant Crios şeklinde sıralandı. En düşük aşınma birinci yılda, en yüksek aşınma beşinci yılda gözlendi. Yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerleri en düşükten en yükseğe doğru: Vita Suprinity, Vita Mark II, Vita Enamic ve Brilliant Crios olarak sıralandı. Birinci ve beşinci yıl pürüzlülük değerleri arasında anlamlı fark bulunmazken (p>0,05), diğer zaman noktalarında anlamlı fark saptandı (p<0,05). En yüksek pürüzlülük birinci yılda, en düşük üçüncü yılda gözlendi. Sonuç: Glaze uygulanmış örneklerde yüzey pürüzlülüğü birinci yılda artmış, üçüncü yılda azalmış, beşinci yılda tekrar artmıştır. Polisaj uygulanmış örneklerde ise pürüzlülük zamanla sürekli artış göstermiştir. Glaze gruplarında yüzey aşınması polisaj gruplarına göre daha fazla olmuştur. Vita Suprinity hem aşınma direnci hem de yüzey düzgünlüğü açısından en iyi performansı sergilerken, Brilliant Crios en yüksek aşınma ve pürüzlülüğü göstermiştir.

Keywords

• CAD/CAM seramik
• fırça abrazyonu
• yüzey pürüzlülüğü
• aşınma

Evaluation of wear and surface roughness after brushing simulator of different CAD/CAM materials

Abstract

Aims: Chewing, toothbrushing, and parafunctional habits can increase the wear and surface roughness of restorative materials, directly affecting the longevity of restorations. This study aimed to evaluate the wear amount and surface roughness of CAD/CAM ceramics with different chemical compositions after a five-year toothbrushing simulation. Methods: Feldspathic ceramic (Vita Mark II), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity), polymer-infiltrated hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic), and resin nano-ceramic (Brilliant Crios) blocks were used. Specimens were sectioned into 2 mm thickness. Vita Mark II, Vita Suprinity, and Vita Enamic were glazed, while Brilliant Crios was polished according to the manufacturers’ instructions. A computer-controlled toothbrushing simulator was applied with a 20 mm back-and-forth movement, 1.25 Hz frequency, and 3 N force. A total of 36.500 cycles simulated five years of brushing. Surface roughness was measured at the first, third, and fifth years using a 2D contact profilometer and a 3D optical profilometer, while wear was determined by precision balance. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between Vita Suprinity and both Vita Enamic and Brilliant Crios in terms of wear (p<0.05). The order of wear, from lowest to highest, was: Vita Suprinity, Vita Mark II, Vita Enamic, and Brilliant Crios. The lowest wear occurred at the first year, and the highest at the fifth year. Surface roughness values ranked from lowest to highest as: Vita Suprinity, Vita Mark II, Vita Enamic, and Brilliant Crios. No significant difference was found between the first and fifth year roughness values (p>0.05), while significant differences were detected among other time points (p<0.05). The highest roughness was observed at first year, and the lowest at third year. Conclusion: Glazed specimens exhibited an increase in surface roughness at first year, a decrease at third year, and an increase again at fifth years. Polished specimens showed a continuous increase in roughness over time. Surface wear was greater in glazed than in polished specimens. Vita Suprinity demonstrated the best performance in terms of both wear resistance and surface smoothness, while Brilliant Crios exhibited the highest wear and roughness.

Keywords

• CAD/CAM ceramic
• toothbrush abrasion
• surface roughness
• wear

References

1. Laborie M, Naveau A, Menard A. CAD-CAM resin-ceramic material wear: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(5):812-818. doi:10. 1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.027
2. Çakmak G, Donmez MB, de Paula MS, et al. Surface roughness, optical properties, and microhardness of additively and subtractively manufactured CAD-CAM materials after brushing and coffee thermal cycling. J Prosthodont. 2025;34(1):68-77. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13796
3. Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P, Ruggiero G, Sorrentino R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):134. doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x
4. Bahadır HS, Bayraktar Y. Evaluation of the repair capacities and color stabilities of a resin nanoceramic and hybrid CAD/CAM blocks. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(3):140-149. doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.3.140
5. Ille C-E, Jivănescu A, Pop D, et al. Exploring the properties and indications of chairside CAD/CAM materials in restorative dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2025;16(2):46. doi:10.3390/jfb16020046
6. Sulaiman TA. Materials in digital dentistry-a review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32(2):171-181. doi:10. 1111/jerd.12566
7. Takahashi R, Jin J, Nikaido T, Tagami J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann K-H. Surface characterization of current composites after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(1):75-82. doi:10.4012/dmj.2012-160
8. Alraheam IA, Donovan T, Boushell L, Cook R, Ritter AV, Sulaiman TA. Fracture load of two thicknesses of different zirconia types after fatiguing and thermocycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):635-640. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.012

9. Kaynak Öztürk E, Karakoca Nemli S, Turhan Bal B, Bankoğlu Güngör M. Evaluation of the optical and surface properties of monolithic CAD-CAM ceramics after simulated tooth-brushing. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 132(6):1325.e1-1325.e8. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.010
10. Asai T, Kazama R, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Effect of overglazed and polished surface finishes on the compressive fracture strength of machinable ceramic materials. Dent Mater J. 2010;29(6):661-667. doi:10. 4012/dmj.2010-029
11. Mühlemann S, Bernini JM, Sener B, Hämmerle CH, Özcan M. Effect of aging on stained monolithic resin-ceramic CAD/CAM materials: quantitative and qualitative analysis of surface roughness. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e563-e571. doi:10.1111/jopr.12949
12. Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;20:113-125. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
13. Matzinger M, Hahnel S, Preis V, Rosentritt M. Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):725-737. doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2473-3
14. Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Werner A, Anami LC, Bottino MA, Kleverlaan CJ. Three-body wear effect on different CAD/CAM ceramics staining durability. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;103:103579. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103579
15. Şen N, Tuncelli B, Göller G. Surface deterioration of monolithic CAD/CAM restorative materials after artificial abrasive toothbrushing. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(4):271-278. doi:10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.271
16. Bataweel OO, Roulet J-F, Rocha MG, Zoidis P, Pereira P, Delgado AJ. Effect of simulated tooth brushing on surface roughness, gloss, and color stability of milled and printed permanent restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025;37(7):1773-1783. doi:10.1111/jerd.13450
17. Rady IS, Anwar EM, Elsharkawy AM, Rabie KA. Wear of enamel antagonist to polished vs glazed zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns (randomized clinical trial). J Contemp Dent Pract. 2025;26(1):18-24. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3804
18. Soares PM, Dal Piva AM de O, Pereira GKR, et al. Effect of brushing simulation on the wear behavior of repaired CAD-CAM restorations. Int Dent J. 2024;74(5):999-1005. doi:10.1016/j.identj.2024.02.012
19. Mohammadibassir M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, Moravej Salehi E, Fahimi MA, Kharazi Fard MJ. Effect of two polishing systems on surface roughness, topography, and flexural strength of a monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e172-e180. doi:10.1111/jopr. 12586
20. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(4):214-216. doi:10.1111/j. 1708-8240.2007.00104.x
21. Ozgünaltay G, Yazici AR, Görücü J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(2):218-224. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01022.x
22. Al Khuraif AAA. An in vitro evaluation of wear and surface roughness of particulate filler composite resin after tooth brushing. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(8):977-983. doi:10.3109/00016357.2014.933251
23. Ganss C, Schlueter N, Preiss S, Klimek J. Tooth brushing habits in uninstructed adults--frequency, technique, duration and force. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13(2):203-208. doi:10.1007/s00784-008-0230-8
24. Peters MC, Delong R, Pintado MR, Pallesen U, Qvist V, Douglas WH. Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear. J Dent. 1999;27(7):479-485. doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00027-5
25. Dahl BL, Oilo G. In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1994;25(8):561-565. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(2): 199-202. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.07.011
26. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(2): 199-202. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.07.011
27. Asadian F, Hoseini AP, Ahmadian L, Rafeie N, Rezaei S, Moradi Z. In vitro attrition wear resistance of four types of paste-like bulk-fill composite resins. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):360. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02393-x
28. de Andrade GS, Augusto MG, Simões BV, Pagani C, Saavedra G de SFA, Bresciani E. Impact of simulated toothbrushing on surface properties of chairside CAD-CAM materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125(3):469.e1-469.e6. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.028
29. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258-269. doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3
30. Epple M, Meyer F, Enax J. A critical review of modern concepts for teeth whitening. Dent J. 2019;7(3):79. doi:10.3390/dj7030079
31. Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Fonseca RG. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(2):318.e1-318.e8. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.011