Wear of ceramic and antagonist--a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To systematically review the existing literature on in vitro assessments of antagonist wear of ceramic materials; (2) To systematically evaluate possible influencing factors on material and antagonist wear of ceramic specimens.
METHODS: The database MEDLINE was searched with the terms "enamel," "wear" and "antagonist." The selected studies were analyzed with regard to wear parameters, type of antagonist and outcome. In the laboratory study, three ceramic materials were selected with different compositions and physical properties: IPS d.SIGN low-fusing metal ceramic, IPS Empress leucite ceramic, e.max Press lithium disilicate ceramic. These materials were subjected to the Ivoclar wear method (Willytec chewing simulator, 120,000cycles, 5kg weight) by systematically modifying the following variables which resulted in 36 tests with 8 specimens in each group: (1) configuration (flat, crown specimen), (2) surface treatment (polish, glaze), (3) type of antagonist (ceramic, two types of enamel stylus). Furthermore, the enamel styluses were cut to measure the enamel thickness and cusp width. Wear of both the material and the antagonist was quantified by scanning plaster replicas of the specimens with a laser scanner (etkon es1) and matching baseline and follow-up data with the Match 3D software (Willytec). The data were log-transformed to stabilize the variance and achieve near normality. To test the influence of specific test parameters, a four-way ANOVA with post hoc tests and Bonferroni correction was applied.
RESULTS: The systematic review revealed 20 in vitro studies in which a material and the antagonist wear of the same material was examined. However, the results were inconsistent mainly due to the fact that the test parameters differed widely. Most studies used prepared enamel from extracted molars as the antagonist and flat polished ceramic specimens. The test chamber was filled with water and some sort of sliding movement was integrated in the wear generating process. However, there was a huge variation in relation to the applied force, the used force actuator, the number of cycles, and the frequency of cycles per time as well as the number of specimens. The results of the systematic laboratory tests revealed that the following factors strongly influence the wear: configuration (more material wear of flat versus crown specimens), surface treatment (more antagonist wear of glazed versus polished specimens), the antagonist system (more material wear and less antagonist wear for ceramic stylus versus enamel stylus), and enamel thickness (less wear for thicker enamel). Material wear was not very much different between the materials. However, e.max Press generally caused more antagonist wear than the other two materials, which were quite similar. However, the main influencing factors did not yield consistent results for all the subgroups and there was a huge variability of results within the subgroups especially in those groups that used enamel as antagonist. SIGNIFICANCE: As far as consistency and correlation with clinical studies is concerned, the set-up that consists of unprepared enamel of molar cusps against glazed crowns seems to be the most appropriate method to evaluate a ceramic material with regard to antagonist wear. However, due to the high variability of results large sample sizes are necessary to differentiate between materials, which calls the whole in vitro approach into question.