OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether the two-body wear of monolithic zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists was higher compared to monolithic alloy and veneered zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical specimens (N = 36, n = 6) were prepared out of (A) veneered zirconia (VZ), (B) glazed zirconia using a glaze ceramic (GZC), (C) glazed zirconia using a glaze spray (GZS), (D) manually polished monolithic zirconia (MAZ), (E) mechanically polished monolithic zirconia (MEZ) and (F) monolithic base alloy (control group, MA). Wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator (49 N, 1.7 Hz, 5°C/50°C) with enamel antagonists. The wear analysis was performed using a 3D profilometer before and after 120,000, 240,000, 640,000 and 1,200,000 masticatory cycles. SEM images were used for evaluating wear qualitatively. The longitudinal results were analysed using linear mixed models (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Materials (p < 0.001) and number of masticatory cycles (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the wear level. The least enamel antagonist wear was observed for MAZ and MEZ (27.3 ± 15.2, 28 ± 11.1 μm, respectively). GZC (118 ± 30.9 μm) showed the highest wear of enamel antagonists. The highest wear rate in the material was observed in GZS (91.3 ± 38.6 μm). While in the groups of MA, VZ, GZC and GZS 50% of the specimens developed cracks in enamel, it was 100% in MAZ and MEZ groups. CONCLUSION: Polished monolithic zirconia showed lower wear rate on enamel antagonists as well as within the material itself but developed higher rates of enamel cracks.
OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether the two-body wear of monolithic zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists was higher compared to monolithic alloy and veneered zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical specimens (N = 36, n = 6) were prepared out of (A) veneered zirconia (VZ), (B) glazed zirconia using a glaze ceramic (GZC), (C) glazed zirconia using a glaze spray (GZS), (D) manually polished monolithic zirconia (MAZ), (E) mechanically polished monolithic zirconia (MEZ) and (F) monolithic base alloy (control group, MA). Wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator (49 N, 1.7 Hz, 5°C/50°C) with enamel antagonists. The wear analysis was performed using a 3D profilometer before and after 120,000, 240,000, 640,000 and 1,200,000 masticatory cycles. SEM images were used for evaluating wear qualitatively. The longitudinal results were analysed using linear mixed models (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Materials (p < 0.001) and number of masticatory cycles (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the wear level. The least enamel antagonist wear was observed for MAZ and MEZ (27.3 ± 15.2, 28 ± 11.1 μm, respectively). GZC (118 ± 30.9 μm) showed the highest wear of enamel antagonists. The highest wear rate in the material was observed in GZS (91.3 ± 38.6 μm). While in the groups of MA, VZ, GZC and GZS 50% of the specimens developed cracks in enamel, it was 100% in MAZ and MEZ groups. CONCLUSION: Polished monolithic zirconia showed lower wear rate on enamel antagonists as well as within the material itself but developed higher rates of enamel cracks.
Authors: J F Esquivel-Upshaw; M J Kim; S M Hsu; N Abdulhameed; R Jenkins; D Neal; F Ren; A E Clark Journal: J Dent Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marina R Kaizer; Petra C Gierthmuehlen; Mateus Bf Dos Santos; Sergio S Cava; Yu Zhang Journal: Ceram Int Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 4.527
Authors: Pedro Molinero-Mourelle; Rocio Cascos-Sanchez; Burak Yilmaz; Walter Yu Hang Lam; Edmond Ho Nang Pow; Jaime Del Río Highsmith; Miguel Gómez-Polo Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Deborah Pacheco Lameira; Wilkens Aurélio Buarque e Silva; Frederico Andrade e Silva; Grace M De Souza Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.411