The amount of enamel wear on the antagonist occlusal surfaces caused by self-glazed zirconia crowns was compared with that caused by contralateral natural teeth. Thirteen self-glazed zirconia crowns were placed in situ. The impressions of self-glazed zirconia crowns, their antagonists and the control teeth were taken and scanned at baseline and 6-month follow-up. The patients were divided into two groups, the self-glazed crowns in one group were subjected to a large amount of grinding with well polishing (LaP group, nโ=โ7), while the other group required a little amount of grinding with well polishing (LiP group, nโ=โ6). Statistics were analysed by two-sided paired Student's t-tests to a significance level of pโ<โ.05. The results revealed that the maximum and mean enamel wear significantly different between the antagonists of self-glazed crowns and the control teeth (pโ<โ.05). Increased amount of enamel wear was found in LaP group (pโ<โ.05). The self-glazed zirconia crowns caused more enamel wear of antagonists than natural teeth after 6 months. Occlusal adjustment and polishing were considered as possible confounders which affected wear behaviour.
LawsonNC, JanyavulaS, SyklawerS, Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014;42(12):1586โ1591. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008
2.
AmerR, KรผrklรผD, KateebE, Three-body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1151โ1155. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.021
3.
LiuY, WangY, WangD, Self-glazed zirconia reducing the wear to tooth enamel. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2016;36(12):2889โ2894. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.029
4.
StoberT, BermejoJL, RammelsbergP, Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(4):314โ322. doi: 10.1111/joor.12139
5.
MundheK, JainV, PruthiG, Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):358โ363. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001
6.
LohbauerU, ReichS.Antagonist wear of monolithic zirconia crowns after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1165โ1172. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1872-6
7.
Amaya-PajaresSP, RitterAV, Vera ResendizC, Effect of finishing and polishing on the surface roughness of four ceramic materials after occlusal adjustment. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016;28(6):382โ396. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12222
8.
MehlA, GlogerW, KunzelmannKH, A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res. 1997;76(11):1799โ1807. doi: 10.1177/00220345970760111201
9.
StoberT, BermejoJL, SchwindlingFS, Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(8):621โ629. doi: 10.1111/joor.12409
10.
JanyavulaS, LawsonN, LawsonN, The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):22โ29. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0
11.
SorensenJA, SultanEA, SorensenPN.Three-body wear of enamel against full crown ceramics[C]. Proceedings of the 89th Iadr General Session; March 16โ19; San Diego, CA, USA; 2011.
12.
BasunbulG, NathansonD.Human enamel wear against four dental ceramics in vitro[C]. Proceedings of the 89th Iadr General Session; March 16โ19; San Diego, CA, USA; 2011.
13.
EtmanMK, WoolfordM, DunneS.Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(3):245โ252.
14.
AlbashairehZS, GhazalM, KernM.Two-body wear of different ceramic materials opposed to zirconia ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(2):105โ113. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60102-3
15.
HanninkRHJ, KellyPM, MuddleBC.Transformation toughening in zirconia-containing ceramics. J Am CeramSoc. 2000;83(3):461โ487. doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.2000.tb01221.x
16.
PreisV, WeiserF, HandelG, Wear performance of monolithic dental ceramics with different surface treatments. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(5):393โ405.
17.
ShenZJ, LiLF, XuXQ, Fractography of self-glazed zirconia with improved reliability. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2017;37(14):4339โ4345. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.03.008
18.
LawsonNC, BansalR, BurgessJO.Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2016;32(11):e275โe283. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222
19.
AboushelibMN, ElsafiMH.Survival of resin infiltrated ceramics under influence of fatigue. Dent Mater. 2016;32(4):529โ534. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.001
ZhangY, HanJ, ZhengG, Fatigue behaviours of the zirconia dental restorations prepared by two manufacturing methods. Adv Appl Ceram. 2017;116(7):368โ375. doi: 10.1080/17436753.2017.1336365
22.
KimSK, KimKN, ChangIT, A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(11):1048โ1055. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x
23.
GhazalM, KernM.Wear of human enamel and nano-filled composite resin denture teeth under different loading forces. J Oral Rehabil. 2009;36(1):58โ64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01904.x
24.
OwensS, BuschangPH, ThrockmortonGS, Masticatory performance and areas of occlusal contact and near contact in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(6):602โ609. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.122829
25.
ForresterSE, PresswoodRG, ToyAC, Occlusal measurement method can affect SEMG activity during occlusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38(9):655โ660. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02205.x
26.
SongQ, WangH, FengCL, Quantitative study on the reliability of articulating pape. Chinese J Conservative Dent. 2016;26(2):86โ93.
KomiyamaO, ObaraR, IidaT, Comparison of direct and indirect occlusal contact examinations with different clenching intensities. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(3):185โ191. doi: 10.1111/joor.12242
29.
XiaJ, TianZR, HuaL, Enamel crystallite strength and wear: nanoscale responses of teeth to chewing loads. J R Soc Interface. 2017;14(135):20170456. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0456
