WEAR OF HUMAN ENAMEL OPPOSING ULTRA-TRANSLUCENT ZIRCONIA WITH TWO SURFACE FINISHING PROCEDURES | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 4, Volume 46, Issue 1, April 2021, Pages 96-101 PDF (390.06 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.21675.1033 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Salma Atef Emam* 1; Samir Abd El Aziz Koheil2; Rania Reda Afifi3 | ||
| 1Conservative Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||
| 2Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| 3Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| ABSTRACT Introduction: With the advancement of material technology, CAD-CAM zirconia restorations have become increasingly popular. Their influence on the opposing tooth surface wear requires further investigation to ensure clinical occlusal stability. Objectives: to determine wear behavior and surface roughness of enamel when opposed by ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia (UTMZ) with two surface finishing procedures (glazed or polished). Materials and Methods: This in vitro study consisted of three groups; Group A: enamel opposing glazed ultra-translucent zirconia, Group B: enamel opposing polished ultra-translucent zirconia, and Group C: enamel opposing enamel as a control group. A modified custom-made tooth brushing machine was used for chewing simulation. The zirconia specimens and the enamel antagonists were subjected to 120,000 cycles with vertical load 49N. The amount of wear was determined based on percentage of weight loss. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the specimens’ surfaces ware carried out using 3D laser scanning microscope. Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests (α=0.05) Results: Enamel surface wear was significantly affected by the opposing surface after chewing simulation, with antagonist natural enamel causing the greatest wear and polished UTMZ the least. There was a significant increase in the surface roughness of both the zirconia specimens and the enamel antagonists after wear test. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, polished UTMZ was shown to be more wear friendly to the antagonist enamel than both the glazed UTMZ and natural enamel. Increase in the surface roughness leads to an increase in the amount of antagonist wear. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Enamel wear; ultra-translucent; zirconia; surface roughness | ||
| References | ||
|
Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011;56:84-96.
Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57:236-61.
Manicone PF, Iommetti PR, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent. 2007;35:819-26.
Jang G, Kim H, Choe H, Son M. Fracture strength and mechanism of dental ceramic crown with zirconia thickness. Procedia Eng. 2011;10:1556-60.
Baldissara P, Wandscher VF, Marchionatti AME, Parisi C, Monaco C, Ciocca L. Translucency of IPS e. max and cubic zirconia monolithic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:269-75.
Yip KH, Smales RJ, Kaidonis JA. Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: Clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:350-6.
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, De Angelis F. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:350-5.
Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, Shah N. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:358-63.
DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006;22:702-11.
Preis V, Weiser F, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of monolithic dental ceramics with different surface treatments. Quintessence Int. 2013;44:393-405.
Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear of ceramic and antagonist--a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater. 2008;24:433-49.
Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, Schneider-Feyrer S, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of dental ceramics after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012;10:13-22.
13.Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:935-43.
14.Wang L, Garcia FC, Amarante de Araújo P, Franco EB, Mondelli RF. Wear Resistance of Packable Resin Composites after Simulated Toothbrushing Test. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16:303-14.
15. Krejci I, Albert P, Lutz F. The influence of antagonist standardization on wear. J Dent Res. 1999;78:713-9.
16. Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, Brehnan K, Walsh EK, Sinkewiz SL, et al. Occlusal forces during chewing-influences of biting strength and food consistency. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;46:561-7.
Kunzelmann KH. Verschleissanalyse und-quantifizierung von Füllungsmaterialien in vivo und in vitro. Aachen:
Shaker; 1998.
Rosentritt M, Behr M, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. Approach for valuating the influence of laboratory simulation.
Dent Mater. 2009;25:348-52.
19.Kwon SJ, Lawson NC, McLaren EE, Nejat AH, Burgess JO. Comparison of the mechanical properties of
translucent zirconia and lithium disilicate. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:132-7.
20. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:22-9.
21.Park JH, Park S, Lee K, Yun KD, Lim HP. Antagonist wear of three CAD/CAM anatomic contour zirconia
ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111:20-9.
Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT, Bottino MC. Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness
effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater. 2013;29:666-73.
Zheng J, Zeng Y, Wen J, Zheng L, Zhou Z. Impact wear behavior of human tooth enamel under simulated chewing
conditions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;62:119-27.
Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite
resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:1141-50.
25.Chong BJ, Thangavel AK, Rolton SB, Guazzato M, Klineberg IJ. Clinical and laboratory surface finishing procedures for zirconia on opposing human enamel wear: A laboratory study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater.2015;50:93-103.
26. Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, Hittelman EL. An evaluation of wear when enamel is
opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96:345-53.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 304 PDF Download: 713 |
||
