Objectives: Determine the polish after toothbrushing abrasion of a new resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM material, 3M™ ESPE™ Lava™ Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative (LVU), compared with commercially available indirect and direct materials. LVU contains about 79wt% nanoceramic particles that reinforce a highly crosslinked polymeric matrix.
Methods: Plates of each material (n=5) were initially polished to a high gloss then subjected to toothbrushing abrasion with a popular over-the-counter dentifrice under a 450g load at 180-200 strokes/min for 6000 cycles. Gloss (60º geometry) was measured using a Novo-Curve Glossmeter (Rhopoint Instruments).
Results: Mean gloss and standard deviation after 6000 cycles of toothbrushing are shown in the table. Letters in the column "SND" denote groups that are statistically not different after 6000 cycles of toothbrushing via ANOVA with Tukey's t-test (p<0.05).
Material | Code | Mfr | Gloss (std dev) @ 6000 cycles | SND gloss @ 6000 cycles |
Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative | LVU | 3M ESPE | 85.6 (2.3) | A |
IPS e.max® CAD | e.max | Ivoclar | 87.3 (6.5) | A |
IPS Empress® CAD | EMP | Ivoclar | 89.7 (0.4) | A |
VITABLOCS® Mark II Block | VM2 | Vita | 81.5 (2.4) | A |
GC InitialTM MC Porcelain | IMC | GC | 81.9 (1.2) | A |
ParadigmTM MZ100 Block | MZ | 3M ESPE | 52.7 (16.2) | B |
Esthet-X® Micro Matrix Restorative | ESX | Dentsply | 42.2 (11.4) | B |
Tetric EvoCeram® Filling Material | TEC | Ivoclar | 23.6 (3.3) | C |
Conclusions: The gloss of LVU after toothbrushing was statistically not different from that of glass ceramic materials e.max, EMP, VM2 and porcelain IMC and was statistically greater than that of composite materials MZ, ESX and TEC. These results show that the nanoceramic filler technology in LVU allows the material to retain its polish similar to glass ceramics and superior to direct composites.
Keywords: CAD/CAM, Ceramics, Dental materials, Esthetics and Prosthodontics