4.1 Article

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

期刊

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 102-112

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2011.654248

关键词

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

资金

  1. Wieland Dental + Technik, Pforzheim, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据