BMC Oral Health· 2026Q1
Comparative volumetric wear of occlusal splint materials under simulated gastric acid and artificial saliva conditions
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
PEEK Biosolution and Armarez (DLP-printed PMMA-based resin) showed significantly less volumetric wear (0.079-0.087 mm³) than Cool&Flex (polyamide, 1.171 mm³) after 120,000 chewing cycles in vitro.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Volumetric wear varied significantly by material, chewing cycles, and their interaction.
- PEEK Biosolution (0.079 mm³) and Armarez (0.087 mm³) had the lowest wear, while Cool&Flex (1.171 mm³) had the highest.
- Wear increased with the number of chewing cycles (30,000 vs. 120,000).
- Storage medium (artificial saliva or simulated gastric acid) did not significantly impact wear.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Background Wear of occlusal splint materials may alter appliance geometry and occlusal relationships during use. This in vitro study evaluated the volumetric material loss of four commercially available occlusal splint materials differing in polymer composition and manufacturing technology after mechanical loading in artificial saliva and simulated gastric acid. Methods A total of 128 specimens were prepared from two digital light processing (DLP)-printed PMMA-based resins (Detax Freeprint Splint and Armarez), one CAD/CAM-milled PEEK material (PEEK Biosolution), and one conventionally injection-molded polyamide material (Cool&Flex). The specimens were allocated to artificial saliva or simulated gastric acid and subjected to either 30,000 or 120,000 chewing cycles. Baseline and post-simulation stereolithography datasets were superimposed, and volumetric material loss was calculated in mm³. The effects of material, storage medium, chewing-cycle number, and their interactions were evaluated using robust factorial ANOVA based on 20% trimmed means. Results Volumetric material loss was significantly associated with material ( p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.881), chewing-cycle number ( p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.626), and the material × chewing-cycle interaction ( p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.752). The main effect of storage medium was not statistically significant ( p = 0.054). When values were pooled across both storage media and chewing-cycle conditions, Cool&Flex showed the greatest volumetric material loss (20% trimmed mean ± SE: 1.171 ± 0.193 mm³), whereas comparatively low values were observed for PEEK Biosolution (0.079 ± 0.014 mm³) and Armarez (0.087 ± 0.020 mm³). Conclusions Under the conditions of this in vitro study, volumetric material loss differed among the tested commercial products and increased with mechanical loading, although the magnitude of this increase varied by material. Storage in simulated gastric acid did not significantly affect volumetric material loss. Because polymer composition and manufacturing method varied simultaneously among the products, their independent effects cannot be distinguished. These findings are limited to the materials and experimental conditions evaluated and should not be interpreted as direct predictions of clinical longevity.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMC Oral Health, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Complementary and Manual Therapy
Complementary and Manual TherapyHealth Professions