Bogna Stawarczyk1, Kathrin Frevert2, Andreas Ender3, Malgorzata Roos4, Beatrice Sener3, Timea Wimmer2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany. Electronic address: bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany. 3. Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the mechanical and optical properties of monolithic zirconia in comparison to conventional zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens were prepared from: monolithic zirconia: Zenostar (ZS), DD Bio ZX(2) hochtransluzent (DD), Ceramill Zolid (CZ), InCoris TZI (IC) and a conventional zirconia Ceramill ZI (CZI). Contrast ratio (N=75/n=15) was measured according to ISO 2471:2008. Grain sizes (N=75/n=15) were investigated with scanning electron microscope. Four-point flexural strength (N=225/n=15/zirconia and aging regime) was measured initially, after aging in autoclave or chewing simulator (ISO 13356:2008). Two-body wear of polished and glazed/veneered specimens (N=108/n=12) was analyzed in a chewing simulator using human teeth as antagonists. Data were analyzed using 2-/1-way ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffé, Kruskal-Wallis-H, Mann-Whitney-U, Spearman-Rho, Weibull statistics and linear mixed models (p<0.05). RESULTS: The lowest contrast ratio values were found for ZS and IC and CZ. IC showed the largest grain size followed by DD and CZI. The smallest grain size was observed for ZS followed by CZ. There was no correlation between grain size and contrast ratio. The aging regime showed no impact on flexural strength. All non-aged and autoclave-aged specimens showed lower flexural strengths than the control group CZI. Within groups aged in chewing simulator, ZS showed significantly lower flexural strength than CZI. CZI showed higher material and antagonist wear than monolithic polished and glazed groups. Glazed specimens showed higher material and antagonist loss compared to polished ones. There was no correlation between roughness and wear. CONCLUSIONS: Monolithic zirconia showed higher optical, but lower mechanical properties than conventional zirconia.
OBJECTIVES: To test the mechanical and optical properties of monolithic zirconia in comparison to conventional zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens were prepared from: monolithic zirconia: Zenostar (ZS), DD Bio ZX(2) hochtransluzent (DD), Ceramill Zolid (CZ), InCoris TZI (IC) and a conventional zirconia Ceramill ZI (CZI). Contrast ratio (N=75/n=15) was measured according to ISO 2471:2008. Grain sizes (N=75/n=15) were investigated with scanning electron microscope. Four-point flexural strength (N=225/n=15/zirconia and aging regime) was measured initially, after aging in autoclave or chewing simulator (ISO 13356:2008). Two-body wear of polished and glazed/veneered specimens (N=108/n=12) was analyzed in a chewing simulator using human teeth as antagonists. Data were analyzed using 2-/1-way ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffé, Kruskal-Wallis-H, Mann-Whitney-U, Spearman-Rho, Weibull statistics and linear mixed models (p<0.05). RESULTS: The lowest contrast ratio values were found for ZS and IC and CZ. IC showed the largest grain size followed by DD and CZI. The smallest grain size was observed for ZS followed by CZ. There was no correlation between grain size and contrast ratio. The aging regime showed no impact on flexural strength. All non-aged and autoclave-aged specimens showed lower flexural strengths than the control group CZI. Within groups aged in chewing simulator, ZS showed significantly lower flexural strength than CZI. CZI showed higher material and antagonist wear than monolithic polished and glazed groups. Glazed specimens showed higher material and antagonist loss compared to polished ones. There was no correlation between roughness and wear. CONCLUSIONS: Monolithic zirconia showed higher optical, but lower mechanical properties than conventional zirconia.
Authors: Christie M Tafur-Zelada; Oscar Carvalho; Filipe S Silva; Bruno Henriques; Mutlu Özcan; Júlio C M Souza Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.573
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: João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Dayana Campanelli de Morais; Alexandre Abhdala Alonso; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Alexandre Luis Souto Borges Journal: J Indian Prosthodont Soc Date: 2017 Jul-Sep