Nathaniel C Lawson1, Sridhar Janyavula2, Sarah Syklawer2, Edward A McLaren3, John O Burgess2. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Clinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA. Electronic address: nlawson@uab.edu. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Clinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA. 3. University of California Los Angeles School of Dentistry, Center for Esthetic Dentistry, CHS 23-010, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the wear and opposing enamel wear of adjusted (A); adjusted and polished (AP); and adjusted and glazed (AG) zirconia and lithium disilicate. METHODS: Specimens (n=8) were prepared of lithium disilicate (A, AP, and AG), zirconia (A, AP, and AG), veneering porcelain, and enamel (control). Surface roughness was measured for each ceramic. In vitro wear was conducted in the UAB-chewing simulator (10 N vertical load/2mm slide/20 cycles/min) with lubricant (33% glycerin) for 400,000 cycles. Isolated cusps of extracted molars were used as antagonists. Scans of the cusps and ceramics were taken at baseline and 400,000 cycles with a non-contact profilometer and super-imposed to determine wear. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: A and AP zirconia showed no detectable signs of wear, and the veneering porcelain demonstrated the most wear. All other ceramics showed significantly less volumetric loss than the veneering porcelain, comparable to enamel-enamel wear. Veneering porcelain produced the most opposing enamel wear (2.15 ± 0.58 mm(3)). AP lithium disilicate and zirconia showed the least amount of enamel wear (0.36 ± 0.09 mm(3) and 0.33 ± 0.11 mm(3) respectively). AG lithium disilicate had statistically similar enamel wear as AP lithium disilicate, but A lithium disilicate had more enamel wear. A and AG zirconia had more enamel wear than AP zirconia. No statistically significant difference was seen between the enamel-enamel group and any other group except the veneering porcelain. CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia has less wear than lithium disilicate. Wear of enamel opposing adjusted lithium disilicate and zirconia decreased following polishing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Zirconia experiences less and lithium disilicate experiences equivalent occlusal wear as natural enamel. It is preferable to polish zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment to make them wear compatible with enamel. Veneering of zirconia and lithium disilicate should be avoided in areas of occlusal contact to prevent enamel wear.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the wear and opposing enamel wear of adjusted (A); adjusted and polished (AP); and adjusted and glazed (AG) zirconia and lithium disilicate. METHODS: Specimens (n=8) were prepared of lithium disilicate (A, AP, and AG), zirconia (A, AP, and AG), veneering porcelain, and enamel (control). Surface roughness was measured for each ceramic. In vitro wear was conducted in the UAB-chewing simulator (10 N vertical load/2mm slide/20 cycles/min) with lubricant (33% glycerin) for 400,000 cycles. Isolated cusps of extracted molars were used as antagonists. Scans of the cusps and ceramics were taken at baseline and 400,000 cycles with a non-contact profilometer and super-imposed to determine wear. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: A and AP zirconia showed no detectable signs of wear, and the veneering porcelain demonstrated the most wear. All other ceramics showed significantly less volumetric loss than the veneering porcelain, comparable to enamel-enamel wear. Veneering porcelain produced the most opposing enamel wear (2.15 ± 0.58 mm(3)). AP lithium disilicate and zirconia showed the least amount of enamel wear (0.36 ± 0.09 mm(3) and 0.33 ± 0.11 mm(3) respectively). AG lithium disilicate had statistically similar enamel wear as AP lithium disilicate, but A lithium disilicate had more enamel wear. A and AG zirconia had more enamel wear than AP zirconia. No statistically significant difference was seen between the enamel-enamel group and any other group except the veneering porcelain. CONCLUSIONS:Zirconia has less wear than lithium disilicate. Wear of enamel opposing adjusted lithium disilicate and zirconia decreased following polishing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Zirconia experiences less and lithium disilicate experiences equivalent occlusal wear as natural enamel. It is preferable to polish zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment to make them wear compatible with enamel. Veneering of zirconia and lithium disilicate should be avoided in areas of occlusal contact to prevent enamel wear.
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: Regina Furbino Villefort; Marina Amaral; Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira; Tiago Moreira Bastos Campos; Yu Zhang; Marco Antonio Bottino; Luiz Felipe Valandro; Renata Marques de Melo Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 5.304