Comparison of the Effect of Monolithic and Layered Zirconia on Natural Teeth Wear: An Study

Overview

Journal J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2018 Nov 20

PMID 30449962

Citations 8

Authors

Yamini Gundugollu

Ravi Shankar Yalavarthy

M Hari Krishna

Srinivas Kalluri

Shameen Kumar Pydi

Satyendra Kumar Tedlapu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare wear of the natural teeth against monolithic zirconia and layered zirconia with different surface finishing procedures such as unpolished unglazed, polished unglazed, and polished glazed.

Materials And Methods: The two-bodied wear test was carried out in a custom-made oral wear simulator with a sample size of 60 zirconia specimen opposing natural teeth. Zirconia specimen was divided into two groups layered and monolithic which further subdivided into unpolished unglazed, polished unglazed, and polished glazed groups ( = 10). The amount of enamel wear occurred for 250,000 cycles when opposed by monolithic and layered zirconia with different surface finishing methods was measured by loss of height of each tooth using three-dimensional scanning and loss of weight using sensitive balance at specified time intervals of 50,000 cycles during masticatory test considering baseline measurement as control. The data were statistically analyzed to compare the enamel wear against layered and monolithic zirconia with different surface finishing protocols by repeated ANOVA test.

Results: Monolithic polished unglazed zirconia showed least tooth wear followed by monolithic polished glazed zirconia, monolithic unpolished unglazed zirconia, and layered unpolished unglazed zirconia showed highest tooth wear in terms of both height loss and weight loss ( < 0.01).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, monolithic polished unglazed zirconia is wear-friendly to the opposing natural teeth, and polished surfaces in both the groups showed less tooth wear compared to the glazed surface of zirconia specimen.

Citing Articles

Tribological aspects of enamel wear caused by zirconia and lithium disilicate: A meta-narrative review.

Okkar Kyaw , Inokoshi M, Kanazawa M Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2024; 60:258-270.

PMID: 39687636 PMC: 11647087. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.11.001.

In vitro effect of zirconia type on shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain and wear of the opposing teeth.

Rafiei A, Fakhrzadeh V, Moslehifard E, Ranjbar G J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2024; 18(2):123-128.

PMID: 39071209 PMC: 11282196. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.40755.

Revolution of Current Dental Zirconia: A Comprehensive Review.

Alqutaibi A, Ghulam O, Krsoum M, Binmahmoud S, Taher H, Elmalky W Molecules. 2022; 27(5).

PMID: 35268800 PMC: 8911694. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27051699.

Wear Resistance, Color Stability and Displacement Resistance of Milled PEEK Crowns Compared to Zirconia Crowns under Stimulated Chewing and High-Performance Aging.

Abhay S, Ganapathy D, Veeraiyan D, Ariga P, Heboyan A, Amornvit P Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(21).

PMID: 34771318 PMC: 8587121. DOI: 10.3390/polym13213761.

An study to compare the surface roughness of glazed and chairside polished dental monolithic zirconia using two polishing systems.

Gaonkar S, Aras M, Chitre V J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020; 20(2):186-192.

PMID: 32655223 PMC: 7335032. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_339_19.

References

Palmer D, Barco M, Pelleu Jr G, McKinney J . Wear of human enamel against a commercial castable ceramic restorative material. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65(2):192-5. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90161-o. View

Jacobi R, Shillingburg Jr H, Duncanson Jr M . A comparison of the abrasiveness of six ceramic surfaces and gold. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66(3):303-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90254-t. View

Ramp M, Suzuki S, Cox C, Lacefield W, Koth D . Evaluation of wear: enamel opposing three ceramic materials and a gold alloy. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77(5):523-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70146-x. View

Delong R, Pintado M, Douglas W . The wear of enamel opposing shaded ceramic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68(1):42-8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90282-f. View

Mitov G, Heintze S, Walz S, Woll K, Muecklich F, Pospiech P . Wear behavior of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different finishing procedures. Dent Mater. 2012; 28(8):909-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.010. View

Lambrechts P, Debels E, van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B . How to simulate wear? Overview of existing methods. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(8):693-701. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.004. View

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(3):358-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001. View

Klausner L, CARTWRIGHT C, CHARBENEAU G . Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47(2):157-62. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90180-9. View

Jagger D, Harrison A . An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72(3):320-3. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90347-6. View

10.

Al-Omiri M, Harb R, Abu Hammad O, Lamey P, Lynch E, Clifford T . Quantification of tooth wear: conventional vs new method using toolmakers microscope and a three-dimensional measuring technique. J Dent. 2010; 38(7):560-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.016. View

11.

Al-Hiyasat A, Saunders W, Sharkey S, Smith G, Gilmour W . The abrasive effect of glazed, unglazed, and polished porcelain on the wear of human enamel, and the influence of carbonated soft drinks on the rate of wear. Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10(3):269-82. View

12.

Delong R, Douglas W, Sakaguchi R, Pintado M . The wear of dental porcelain in an artificial mouth. Dent Mater. 1986; 2(5):214-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(86)80016-1. View

13.

Esquivel-Upshaw J, Kim M, Hsu S, Abdulhameed N, Jenkins R, Neal D . Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent. 2017; 68:19-27. PMC: 5828514. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.005. View

14.

Hmaidouch R, Weigl P . Tooth wear against ceramic crowns in posterior region: a systematic literature review. Int J Oral Sci. 2013; 5(4):183-90. PMC: 3967317. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2013.73. View

15.

Heintze S . How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(8):712-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002. View

16.

Rupawala A, Musani S, Madanshetty P, Dugal R, Shah U, Sheth E . A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017; 17(1):8-14. PMC: 5308066. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.194940. View

17.

Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp L, Burgess J . The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0. View

18.

Brewer J, Garlapo D, Chipps E, Tedesco L . Clinical discrimination between autoglazed and polished porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64(6):631-4. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90284-j. View

19.

Zalkind M, Lauer S, Stern N . Porcelain surface texture after reduction and natural glazing. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55(1):30-3. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90067-3. View

20.

DeLong R . Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(8):702-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.003. View