PURPOSE: To digitally evaluate the volumetric wear of four different implant-crown materials and their antagonists after artificial aging using an intraoral scanner (IOS) device and a laboratory desktop scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 implants were restored with monolithic crowns divided according to restorative material: lithium disilicate (LDS), zirconia (ZR), polymerinfiltrated ceramic network (PICN), and porcelain fused to metal (PFM). Each specimen was scanned using a desktop scanner (LAB; iScan D104, IMETRIC 3D) and an IOS (TRIOS 3, 3Shape) before and after chewing simulation (1,200,000 cycles, 49 N, steatite antagonist, 5°C to 50°C). The obtained STL files were superimposed, and the volumetric loss of substance of the crowns and their antagonists was quantified (Materialise 3-matic). Kruskal-Wallis, Spearman rho, and paired t tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05). RESULTS: The means of volume loss for each restorative material varied between 0.05 ± 0.06 mm3 (ZR with IOS) and 3.42 ± 1.65 mm3 (LDS with LAB). The wear of the antagonists was significantly lower (P < .05) for ZR than the other groups. Increased wear of the crowns was highly correlated with increased wear of their antagonists (rs = 0.859). When comparing the wear measurement using the two scanning devices, no difference in mean volume loss was found (IOS: 1.81 ± 1.81 mm3; LAB: 1.82 ± 1.78 mm3) (P = .596). CONCLUSION: Polished ZR was the most wear-resistant material and the least abrasive to the respective antagonist among the tested ceramics. For the quantification of wear, this IOS device can be used as an alternative to desktop scanners.
PURPOSE: To digitally evaluate the volumetric wear of four different implant-crown materials and their antagonists after artificial aging using an intraoral scanner (IOS) device and a laboratory desktop scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 implants were restored with monolithic crowns divided according to restorative material: lithium disilicate (LDS), zirconia (ZR), polymerinfiltrated ceramic network (PICN), and porcelain fused to metal (PFM). Each specimen was scanned using a desktop scanner (LAB; iScan D104, IMETRIC 3D) and an IOS (TRIOS 3, 3Shape) before and after chewing simulation (1,200,000 cycles, 49 N, steatite antagonist, 5°C to 50°C). The obtained STL files were superimposed, and the volumetric loss of substance of the crowns and their antagonists was quantified (Materialise 3-matic). Kruskal-Wallis, Spearman rho, and paired t tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05). RESULTS: The means of volume loss for each restorative material varied between 0.05 ± 0.06 mm3 (ZR with IOS) and 3.42 ± 1.65 mm3 (LDS with LAB). The wear of the antagonists was significantly lower (P < .05) for ZR than the other groups. Increased wear of the crowns was highly correlated with increased wear of their antagonists (rs = 0.859). When comparing the wear measurement using the two scanning devices, no difference in mean volume loss was found (IOS: 1.81 ± 1.81 mm3; LAB: 1.82 ± 1.78 mm3) (P = .596). CONCLUSION: Polished ZR was the most wear-resistant material and the least abrasive to the respective antagonist among the tested ceramics. For the quantification of wear, this IOS device can be used as an alternative to desktop scanners.