A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Wear of a dental composite in an artificial oral environment: A clinical correlation. | LitMetric

Wear of a dental composite in an artificial oral environment: A clinical correlation.

J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater

Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Published: November 2012

The study objective was to correlate wear between an in vitro method for simulating wear and in vivo wear of a posterior dental composite. Ten subjects (12 restorations) were selected from a five-year clinical study (University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry) that assessed wear of SureFil composite (Caulk, Dentsply). Subject casts were digitized and changes in volume and mean depth with time were calculated from the 3D digital models for contact and contact-free wear. SureFil composite disks were mounted in the University of Minnesota's Artificial Oral Environment, opposed by natural enamel, subjected to mandibular-like movements for 150 K, 300 K, 600 K, 1.2 M, and 1.5 M cycles, and loaded with peak forces of 13 N (n = 7) or 30 N (n = 3). Wear rates were calculated as the slope of the linear regressions fitting the wear data. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs and post hoc t-tests where appropriate (p = 0.05). Clinical restorations included contact wear on seven restorations and contact-free wear on all restorations. Contact-free wear was less than contact wear (p < 0.01). SureFil clinical wear rates were 0.012 mm/year (mean depth) and 0.023 mm(3)/year (volume). Clinical restorations expanded slightly during the first year. Using a conversion rate of one year equals 3 × 10(5) cycles, there were no significant differences between the clinical and simulated data except depths at Year 5 and 13 N volume at Year 4. The 30 N simulation reproduced the clinical data if contact-free wear was taken into account. Good agreement between simulated and clinical wear implies that in vitro simulation can screen new composite formulations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32801DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

contact-free wear
16
wear
15
dental composite
8
artificial oral
8
oral environment
8
clinical
8
wear surefil
8
surefil composite
8
wear rates
8
clinical restorations
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!