Nantawan Kolakarnprasert1, Marina R Kaizer2, Do Kyung Kim3, Yu Zhang4. 1. Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA. 2. Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA; Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positivo University, Curitiba, Brazil. 3. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), South Korea. 4. Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA. Electronic address: yz21@nyu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To fully realize the range of indication and clinical advantages of the new multi-layered zirconias, a comprehensive understanding of their chemical composition, microstructure, low temperature degradation (LTD) resistance, and translucency properties is paramount. METHODS: A zirconia system (Katana, Kuraray Noritake), including 3 distinct grades of multi-layered zirconias, was selected for study: Ultra Translucent Multi-layered zirconia (UTML), Super Translucent Multi-layered zirconia (STML), and Multi-layered zirconia (ML). For different materials and their individual layers, the chemical composition, zirconia phase fractions, and microstructure were determined by X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). Also, their resistance to LTD and translucency properties were characterized. RESULTS: Our findings revealed no major differences amongst layers, but the 3 materials were very distinct-UTML: 5Y-PSZ (5 mol% yttria-partially-stabilized zirconia) with ˜75 wt% cubic content and a 4.05 (±0.85) μm average grain size, STML: 4Y-PSZ with ˜65 wt% cubic content and a 2.81 (±0.17) μm average grain size, and ML: 3Y-PSZ with <50 wt% cubic content and a 0.63 (±0.03) μm average grain size. After water aging at 120 °C for 12 h, greater monoclinic content was found in ML. UTML and STML did not show detectable monoclinic phase. The translucency was similar among layers, and also between UTML and STML, which were superior to ML. SIGNIFICANCE: For each multi-layered zirconia grades, the layers are only differed in pigment types and contents, which yield remarkably natural shade gradients. Also, despite the significant compositional difference between STML and UTML, both materials showed similar translucencies.
OBJECTIVES: To fully realize the range of indication and clinical advantages of the new multi-layered zirconias, a comprehensive understanding of their chemical composition, microstructure, low temperature degradation (LTD) resistance, and translucency properties is paramount. METHODS:A zirconia system (Katana, Kuraray Noritake), including 3 distinct grades of multi-layered zirconias, was selected for study: Ultra Translucent Multi-layered zirconia (UTML), Super Translucent Multi-layered zirconia (STML), and Multi-layered zirconia (ML). For different materials and their individual layers, the chemical composition, zirconia phase fractions, and microstructure were determined by X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). Also, their resistance to LTD and translucency properties were characterized. RESULTS: Our findings revealed no major differences amongst layers, but the 3 materials were very distinct-UTML: 5Y-PSZ (5 mol% yttria-partially-stabilized zirconia) with ˜75 wt% cubic content and a 4.05 (±0.85) μm average grain size, STML: 4Y-PSZ with ˜65 wt% cubic content and a 2.81 (±0.17) μm average grain size, and ML: 3Y-PSZ with <50 wt% cubic content and a 0.63 (±0.03) μm average grain size. After water aging at 120 °C for 12 h, greater monoclinic content was found in ML. UTML and STML did not show detectable monoclinic phase. The translucency was similar among layers, and also between UTML and STML, which were superior to ML. SIGNIFICANCE: For each multi-layered zirconia grades, the layers are only differed in pigment types and contents, which yield remarkably natural shade gradients. Also, despite the significant compositional difference between STML and UTML, both materials showed similar translucencies.
Authors: E Camposilvan; R Leone; L Gremillard; R Sorrentino; F Zarone; M Ferrari; J Chevalier Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: K Nakamura; A Harada; M Ono; H Shibasaki; T Kanno; Y Niwano; E Adolfsson; P Milleding; U Örtengren Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2015-09-01
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: Markus Wertz; Florian Fuchs; Hieronymus Hoelzig; Julia Maria Wertz; Gert Kloess; Sebastian Hahnel; Martin Rosentritt; Andreas Koenig Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 3.623