Camillo D'Arcangelo1, Lorenzo Vanini2, Giuseppe D Rondoni3, Francesco De Angelis4. 1. Associate Professor and Head, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy. Electronic address: cdarcang@unich.it. 2. Private practice, Chiasso, Switzerland. 3. Dental Technician, Savona, Italy. 4. Resident, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, "G. D'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Contemporary pressable and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics exhibit good mechanical and esthetic properties. Their wear resistance compared with human enamel and traditional gold based alloys needs to be better investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 2-body wear resistance of human enamel, gold alloy, and 5 different dental ceramics, including a recently introduced zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Celtra Duo). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cylindrical specimens were fabricated from a Type III gold alloy (Aurocast8), 2 hot pressed ceramics (Imagine PressX, IPS e.max Press), 2 CAD/CAM ceramics (IPS e.max CAD, Celtra Duo), and a CAD/CAM feldspathic porcelain (Vitablocs Mark II) (n=10). Celtra Duo was tested both soon after grinding and after a subsequent glaze firing cycle. Ten flat human enamel specimens were used as the control group. All specimens were subjected to a 2-body wear test in a dual axis mastication simulator for 120000 loading cycles against yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal cusps. The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical substance loss (mm) and the volume loss (mm(3)). Antagonist wear (mm) was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with 1-way ANOVA tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The wear depth (0.223 mm) of gold alloy was the closest to that of human enamel (0.217 mm), with no significant difference (P>.05). The greatest wear was recorded on the milled Celtra Duo (wear depth=0.320 mm), which appeared significantly less wear resistant than gold alloy or human enamel (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The milled and not glazed Celtra Duo showed a small but significantly increased wear depth compared with Aurocast8 and human enamel. Wear depth and volumetric loss for the glaze-fired Celtra Duo and for the other tested ceramics did not statistically differ in comparison with the human enamel.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Contemporary pressable and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics exhibit good mechanical and esthetic properties. Their wear resistance compared with human enamel and traditional gold based alloys needs to be better investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 2-body wear resistance of human enamel, gold alloy, and 5 different dental ceramics, including a recently introduced zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Celtra Duo). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cylindrical specimens were fabricated from a Type III gold alloy (Aurocast8), 2 hot pressed ceramics (Imagine PressX, IPS e.max Press), 2 CAD/CAM ceramics (IPS e.max CAD, Celtra Duo), and a CAD/CAM feldspathic porcelain (Vitablocs Mark II) (n=10). Celtra Duo was tested both soon after grinding and after a subsequent glaze firing cycle. Ten flat human enamel specimens were used as the control group. All specimens were subjected to a 2-body wear test in a dual axis mastication simulator for 120000 loading cycles against yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal cusps. The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical substance loss (mm) and the volume loss (mm(3)). Antagonist wear (mm) was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with 1-way ANOVA tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The wear depth (0.223 mm) of gold alloy was the closest to that of human enamel (0.217 mm), with no significant difference (P>.05). The greatest wear was recorded on the milled Celtra Duo (wear depth=0.320 mm), which appeared significantly less wear resistant than gold alloy or human enamel (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The milled and not glazed Celtra Duo showed a small but significantly increased wear depth compared with Aurocast8 and human enamel. Wear depth and volumetric loss for the glaze-fired Celtra Duo and for the other tested ceramics did not statistically differ in comparison with the human enamel.