STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The wear of tooth structure opposing anatomically contoured zirconia crowns requires further investigation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the roughness and wear of polished, glazed, and polished then reglazed zirconia against human enamel antagonists and compare the measurements to those of veneering porcelain and natural enamel. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens were divided into polished, glazed, and polished then reglazed groups (n=8). A veneering porcelain (Ceramco3) and enamel were used as controls. The surface roughness of all pretest specimens was measured. Wear testing was performed in the newly designed Alabama wear testing device. The mesiobuccal cusps of extracted molars were standardized and used as antagonists. Three-dimensional (3D) scans of the specimens and antagonists were obtained at baseline and after 200 000 and 400 000 cycles with a profilometer. The baseline scans were superimposed on the posttesting scans to determine volumetric wear. Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc tests (α=.05) RESULTS: Surface roughness ranked in order of least rough to roughest was: polished zirconia, glazed zirconia, polished then reglazed zirconia, veneering porcelain, and enamel. For ceramic, there was no measureable loss on polished zirconia, moderate loss on the surface of enamel, and significant loss on glazed and polished then reglazed zirconia. The highest ceramic wear was exhibited by the veneering ceramic. For enamel antagonists, polished zirconia caused the least wear, and enamel caused moderate wear. Glazed and polished then reglazed zirconia showed significant opposing enamel wear, and veneering porcelain demonstrated the most. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, polished zirconia is wear-friendly to the opposing tooth. Glazed zirconia causes more material and antagonist wear than polished zirconia. The surface roughness of the zirconia aided in predicting the wear of the opposing dentition.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The wear of tooth structure opposing anatomically contoured zirconia crowns requires further investigation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the roughness and wear of polished, glazed, and polished then reglazed zirconia against human enamel antagonists and compare the measurements to those of veneering porcelain and natural enamel. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Zirconia specimens were divided into polished, glazed, and polished then reglazed groups (n=8). A veneering porcelain (Ceramco3) and enamel were used as controls. The surface roughness of all pretest specimens was measured. Wear testing was performed in the newly designed Alabama wear testing device. The mesiobuccal cusps of extracted molars were standardized and used as antagonists. Three-dimensional (3D) scans of the specimens and antagonists were obtained at baseline and after 200 000 and 400 000 cycles with a profilometer. The baseline scans were superimposed on the posttesting scans to determine volumetric wear. Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc tests (α=.05) RESULTS: Surface roughness ranked in order of least rough to roughest was: polished zirconia, glazed zirconia, polished then reglazed zirconia, veneering porcelain, and enamel. For ceramic, there was no measureable loss on polished zirconia, moderate loss on the surface of enamel, and significant loss on glazed and polished then reglazed zirconia. The highest ceramic wear was exhibited by the veneering ceramic. For enamel antagonists, polished zirconia caused the least wear, and enamel caused moderate wear. Glazed and polished then reglazed zirconia showed significant opposing enamel wear, and veneering porcelain demonstrated the most. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, polished zirconia is wear-friendly to the opposing tooth. Glazed zirconia causes more material and antagonist wear than polished zirconia. The surface roughness of the zirconia aided in predicting the wear of the opposing dentition.
Authors: Taciana Emília Leite Vila-Nova; Isabelle Helena Gurgel de Carvalho; Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura; André Ulisses Dantas Batista; Yu Zhang; Carlos Alberto Paskocimas; Marco Antonio Bottino; Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção E Souza Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 5.304
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