In vitro wear of various orthotic device materials

Jeffery Casey, William J. Dunn, Edward F Wright

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem. Orthotic devices are advocated to decrease occlusal attrition caused by bruxism but tend to wear with time. Purpose. This study investigated the wear rate of various materials used to fabricate orthotic devices. Material and methods. Five experimental groups (n=8) were studied: Splint Biocryl autopolymerized (SBA), Splint Biocryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (SBHP), Forestacryl autopolymerized (FA), Forestacryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (FHP), and Quick Splint 15-minute (QS), light-polymerized composite. Specimens were mounted to the base of a universal testing machine. A wear device using steatite balls and a load of 9.1 kg was positioned against the specimens, submerged in a 37°C water bath and subjected to 2500 reciprocal cycles. Wear, in micrometers, was calculated as the maximum peak to valley measurement (Ry) using profilometry. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD (α=.05). Results. Mean acrylic wear in micrometers was as follows: FA 6.8 ±3.0; FHP 7.1 ± 1.8; SBA 20.4 ± 5.6; SBHP 23.7 ± 7.8; and QS 23.8 ± 6.9. One-way ANOVA detected significant differences between groups (P<.001); the Tukey honestly significant difference test determined that FA and FHP specimens were significantly more resistant to wear than all other specimens (P=.007). Conclusion. Differences in in vitro wear resistance among various orthotic device materials exist. The in vitro wear resistance among other autopolymerizing materials appears to be related to proprietary differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)498-502
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume90
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthotic Devices
Splints
Analysis of Variance
Hot Temperature
Bruxism
Pressure
Baths
In Vitro Techniques
Light
Equipment and Supplies
Water
Biocryl

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

In vitro wear of various orthotic device materials. / Casey, Jeffery; Dunn, William J.; Wright, Edward F.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 90, No. 5, 11.2003, p. 498-502.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Casey, Jeffery ; Dunn, William J. ; Wright, Edward F. / In vitro wear of various orthotic device materials. In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2003 ; Vol. 90, No. 5. pp. 498-502.
@article{42f90b017f194a72bc22a3ce52d1ffae,
title = "In vitro wear of various orthotic device materials",
abstract = "Statement of problem. Orthotic devices are advocated to decrease occlusal attrition caused by bruxism but tend to wear with time. Purpose. This study investigated the wear rate of various materials used to fabricate orthotic devices. Material and methods. Five experimental groups (n=8) were studied: Splint Biocryl autopolymerized (SBA), Splint Biocryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (SBHP), Forestacryl autopolymerized (FA), Forestacryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (FHP), and Quick Splint 15-minute (QS), light-polymerized composite. Specimens were mounted to the base of a universal testing machine. A wear device using steatite balls and a load of 9.1 kg was positioned against the specimens, submerged in a 37°C water bath and subjected to 2500 reciprocal cycles. Wear, in micrometers, was calculated as the maximum peak to valley measurement (Ry) using profilometry. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD (α=.05). Results. Mean acrylic wear in micrometers was as follows: FA 6.8 ±3.0; FHP 7.1 ± 1.8; SBA 20.4 ± 5.6; SBHP 23.7 ± 7.8; and QS 23.8 ± 6.9. One-way ANOVA detected significant differences between groups (P<.001); the Tukey honestly significant difference test determined that FA and FHP specimens were significantly more resistant to wear than all other specimens (P=.007). Conclusion. Differences in in vitro wear resistance among various orthotic device materials exist. The in vitro wear resistance among other autopolymerizing materials appears to be related to proprietary differences.",
author = "Jeffery Casey and Dunn, {William J.} and Wright, {Edward F}",
year = "2003",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00545-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "498--502",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro wear of various orthotic device materials

AU - Casey, Jeffery

AU - Dunn, William J.

AU - Wright, Edward F

PY - 2003/11

Y1 - 2003/11

N2 - Statement of problem. Orthotic devices are advocated to decrease occlusal attrition caused by bruxism but tend to wear with time. Purpose. This study investigated the wear rate of various materials used to fabricate orthotic devices. Material and methods. Five experimental groups (n=8) were studied: Splint Biocryl autopolymerized (SBA), Splint Biocryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (SBHP), Forestacryl autopolymerized (FA), Forestacryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (FHP), and Quick Splint 15-minute (QS), light-polymerized composite. Specimens were mounted to the base of a universal testing machine. A wear device using steatite balls and a load of 9.1 kg was positioned against the specimens, submerged in a 37°C water bath and subjected to 2500 reciprocal cycles. Wear, in micrometers, was calculated as the maximum peak to valley measurement (Ry) using profilometry. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD (α=.05). Results. Mean acrylic wear in micrometers was as follows: FA 6.8 ±3.0; FHP 7.1 ± 1.8; SBA 20.4 ± 5.6; SBHP 23.7 ± 7.8; and QS 23.8 ± 6.9. One-way ANOVA detected significant differences between groups (P<.001); the Tukey honestly significant difference test determined that FA and FHP specimens were significantly more resistant to wear than all other specimens (P=.007). Conclusion. Differences in in vitro wear resistance among various orthotic device materials exist. The in vitro wear resistance among other autopolymerizing materials appears to be related to proprietary differences.

AB - Statement of problem. Orthotic devices are advocated to decrease occlusal attrition caused by bruxism but tend to wear with time. Purpose. This study investigated the wear rate of various materials used to fabricate orthotic devices. Material and methods. Five experimental groups (n=8) were studied: Splint Biocryl autopolymerized (SBA), Splint Biocryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (SBHP), Forestacryl autopolymerized (FA), Forestacryl autopolymerized plus additional heat and pressure (FHP), and Quick Splint 15-minute (QS), light-polymerized composite. Specimens were mounted to the base of a universal testing machine. A wear device using steatite balls and a load of 9.1 kg was positioned against the specimens, submerged in a 37°C water bath and subjected to 2500 reciprocal cycles. Wear, in micrometers, was calculated as the maximum peak to valley measurement (Ry) using profilometry. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD (α=.05). Results. Mean acrylic wear in micrometers was as follows: FA 6.8 ±3.0; FHP 7.1 ± 1.8; SBA 20.4 ± 5.6; SBHP 23.7 ± 7.8; and QS 23.8 ± 6.9. One-way ANOVA detected significant differences between groups (P<.001); the Tukey honestly significant difference test determined that FA and FHP specimens were significantly more resistant to wear than all other specimens (P=.007). Conclusion. Differences in in vitro wear resistance among various orthotic device materials exist. The in vitro wear resistance among other autopolymerizing materials appears to be related to proprietary differences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0242289418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0242289418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00545-6

DO - 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00545-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 14586313

AN - SCOPUS:0242289418

VL - 90

SP - 498

EP - 502

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 5

ER -