Effect of material and antagonist type on the wear of occlusal devices with different compositions fabricated by using conventional, additive, and subtractive manufacturing.

ABSTRACT

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Additive (AM) and subtractive (SM) manufacturing have become popular for fabricating occlusal devices with materials of different chemical compositions. However, knowledge on the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear characteristics of occlusal devices fabricated by using different methods is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear of occlusal devices fabricated by using conventional manufacturing, AM, and SM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two-hundred and forty Ø10×2-mm disk-shaped specimens were fabricated by using heat-polymerized polymethylmethacrylate (control, CM), AM clear device resin fabricated in 3 different orientations (horizontal [AMH], diagonal [AMD], and vertical [AMV]), SM polymethylmethacrylate (SMP), and SM ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone (SMB) (n=40). Specimens were then divided into 4 groups based on the antagonists steatite ceramic (SC); multilayered zirconia (ZR); lithium disilicate (EX); and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) used for thermomechanical aging (n=10). After aging, the volume loss (mm3) and maximum wear depth (µm) were digitally evaluated. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The interaction between the device material and the antagonist affected volume loss and maximum depth of wear (P<.001). AMH had volume loss and depth of wear that was either similar to or higher than those of other materials (P≤.044). When SC was used, CM had higher volume loss and depth of wear than AMV, and, when EX was used, AMD had higher volume loss and depth of wear than SMP (P≤.013). SC and ZR led to higher volume loss of CM and AMH than EX and led to the highest depth of wear for these materials, while ZR also led to the highest volume loss and depth of wear of AMD and AMV (P≤.019). EX led to the lowest volume loss and depth of wear of AMV and SMP and to the lowest depth of wear of AMH (P≤.021). Regardless of the antagonist, SMB had the lowest volume loss and depth of wear (P≤.005). CONCLUSIONS: AMH mostly had higher volume loss and depth of wear, while SMB had the lowest volume loss, and its depth of wear was not affected by the tested antagonists. ZR mostly led to higher volume loss and maximum depth of wear, while EX mostly led to lower volume loss and maximum depth of wear of the tested occlusal device materials.