4.1 Article

Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists

Journal

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 102-112

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2011.654248

Keywords

monolithic zirconia; ceramic; abrasion; enamel; two-body wear

Funding

  1. Wieland Dental + Technik, Pforzheim, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. This study tested whether the two-body wear of monolithic zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists was higher compared to monolithic alloy and veneered zirconia. Materials and methods. Cylindrical specimens (N = 36, n = 6) were prepared out of (A) veneered zirconia (VZ), (B) glazed zirconia using a glaze ceramic (GZC), (C) glazed zirconia using a glaze spray (GZS), (D) manually polished monolithic zirconia (MAZ), (E) mechanically polished monolithic zirconia (MEZ) and (F) monolithic base alloy (control group, MA). Wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator (49 N, 1.7 Hz, 5 degrees C/50 degrees C) with enamel antagonists. The wear analysis was performed using a 3D profilometer before and after 120,000, 240,000, 640,000 and 1,200,000 masticatory cycles. SEM images were used for evaluating wear qualitatively. The longitudinal results were analysed using linear mixed models (alpha = 0.05). Results. Materials (p < 0.001) and number of masticatory cycles (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the wear level. The least enamel antagonist wear was observed for MAZ and MEZ (27.3 +/- 15.2, 28 +/- 11.1 mm, respectively). GZC (118 +/- 30.9 mu m) showed the highest wear of enamel antagonists. The highest wear rate in the material was observed in GZS (91.3 +/- 38.6 mu m). While in the groups of MA, VZ, GZC and GZS 50% of the specimens developed cracks in enamel, it was 100% in MAZ and MEZ groups. Conclusion. Polished monolithic zirconia showed lower wear rate on enamel antagonists as well as within the material itself but developed higher rates of enamel cracks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available