Wear behavior and abrasiveness of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics after simulated mastication

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the wear resistance and abrasiveness of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics.Materials and methodsRectangular-shaped specimens (12 mm × 6.5 mm × 1.5 mm) were sectioned from the following CAD/CAM blocks (n = 10); partially crystallized lithium disilicate (PLD), experimental fully crystallized lithium disilicate (FLD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), super-translucent monolithic zirconia (SMZ), and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia (UMZ). Silicon carbide papers were used to mechanically flatten and polish the surfaces. PLD specimens were subjected to a combined crystallization/glazing firing cycle. Ceramic specimens were mounted to the wear device and tested for 200,000 cycles against human premolars at 20 N force and 2 mm sliding distance. Artificial saliva was used as a lubricant. The teeth were scanned using micro-CT before and after the wear test and the generated models were overlapped to determine the volumetric tooth loss. Before and after the test, specimens’ weights and surface roughness (Ra) values were measured, and the differences were calculated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were utilized for microstructural and chemical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA or an equivalent test for non-parametric results. Significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.ResultsThe type of ceramic material affected the ceramic and antagonist wear rates (P < 0.001). PLD and ZLS had the highest ceramic and antagonist wear, whereas UMZ and SMZ demonstrated the lowest wear values. The FLD group showed comparable antagonist wear and significantly less ceramic wear than PLD and ZLS.ConclusionsMonolithic zirconia demonstrated the best wear resistance and least abrasiveness to the antagonist. The experimental lithium disilicate was more wear-resistant than other glass–ceramic groups.Clinical relevanceMonolithic zirconia is wear-resistant and gentle on the antagonist. In contrast, glass–ceramics are more abrasive to enamel.