Wear Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia against Natural Teeth in Comparison to Two Glass Ceramics with two Surface Finishing Protocols: An In-Vitro Study

Dina Kamal Abouelenien,Hanaa Zaghloul,Hany Halim Nasr

doi:10.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.1889

Dina Kamal Abouelenien, Hanaa Zaghloul + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.1889

Copy DOI

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the wear behavior of three different ceramic systems; monolithic zirconia, lithium di-silicate and nano-fluorapatite glass ceramic with two finishing procedures polishing and glazing, and their effect on the wear of natural tooth antagonists. Material and Methods: Forty two ceramic disc specimens (10mm x3mm) and forty two natural tooth antagonists were used. Samples were divided according to ceramic materials into 3 groups (n = 14). Group I: nano-fluorapatite glass ceramic (FLU) (IPS e.max Ceram), Group II: lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max CAD) and group III: monolithic zirconia (ZIR) (ZirkoZahn Prettau). Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 7), according to the surface finish: Polishing (P) and glazing (G). Specimens were subjected to a custom designed two-body wear simulator. Quantitative wear assessment was carried out using weight loss measurements. Scanning electron microscope was used for characterization of wear patterns. Kruscal Wallis and Dunn’s tests were used to compare between weight loss of the three ceramic materials. Whitney U test was used to compare the weight loss between the two surface finish protocols. Wilcoxon Signed rank test was used to compare the weight loss between ceramic specimens and antagonist teeth (p ? 0.05). Paired t-test was used to compare weight loss before and after wear test. Results: After wear, LD and FLU had the highest weight loss values compared to ZIR (p < 0.05). For teeth, there was no significant difference between the weight loss values with the three materials (p > 0.05). P and G specimens showed no significant difference in weight loss values. SEM images of the wear patterns verified the previous analysis. Conclusion: ZIR is more wear resistant than LD and FLU. However, the surface treatment had no impact on the wear behavior.KEYWORDSGlass-ceramics; Monolithic; Two-body wear simulation; Wear; Zirconia.

Highlights

The increased demand for esthetics in dentistry has led researchers to create ceramic restorations to mimic the appearance of natural teeth and eliminate the need for metal substructures [1]
For P as well as G ceramic specimens, there was no significant difference between lithium disilicate (LD) and fluorapatite glass ceramic (FLU)
Both showed significantly the highest mean weight loss values; while ZIR showed significantly the lowest mean weight loss values p ≤ 0.05. As for their tooth antagonist, no significant difference was found in the mean weight loss values among the three ceramic materials

Summary

Introduction

The increased demand for esthetics in dentistry has led researchers to create ceramic restorations to mimic the appearance of natural teeth and eliminate the need for metal substructures [1]. Nano-fluorapatite glass is a new generation of dental layering ceramic which is ideal for finishing dental restorations. It contains apatite crystals which closely resemble those found in enamel, helping to achieve a natural appearance. It can be used as a veneering ceramic with glass ceramics as well as zirconium oxide [2]. Its mechanical properties are basically the highest reported ever for dental ceramics, that is why its clinical use has increased [4,5]

Methods

Results

Conclusion