The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

3D quantitative analysis and SEM qualitative analysis of natural antagonist enamel opposing CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns versus enamel opposing natural enamel

  • Received : 2023.07.29
  • Accepted : 2024.02.13
  • Published : 2024.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to evaluate the maximum vertical wear, volume wear, and surface characteristic of antagonist enamel, opposing monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study comprised 24 participants (n = 12), who were randomly allocated to receive either a 5 mol% Y-TZP or a lithium disilicate crown in positions which would oppose the natural first molar tooth. The contralateral first molar along with its antagonist was considered as the enamel opposing natural enamel control. Data collection was performed using an intraoral scanner and polyvinylsiloxane impression. The means of the maximum vertical loss and the volume loss at the occlusal contact areas of the crowns and the various natural antagonists were measured by 3D comparison software. A scanning electron microscope was subsequently used to assess the wear characteristics. RESULTS. The one-year results from 22 participants (n = 11) indicated no significant differences when comparing the zirconia crown's antagonist enamel (40.28 ± 9.11 ㎛, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm3) and the natural enamel wear (38.91 ± 7.09 ㎛, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm3) (P > .05). Also, there is no significant differences between lithium disilicate crown's antagonist enamel (47.81 ± 9.41 ㎛, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm3) and the natural enamel wear (39.11 ± 7.90 ㎛, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm3) (P > .05). CONCLUSION. While some studies suggested that monolithic zirconia caused less wear on opposing enamel than lithium disilicate, this study found similar wear levels to enamel for both materials compared to natural teeth.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a Mahidol University Faculty of Dentistry Grant (grant numbers DTRS-EG-2019-11, 2019).

References

  1. Smith BG, Bartlett DW, Robb ND. The prevalence, etiology and management of tooth wear in the United Kingdom. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:367-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70043-X
  2. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 1989;68:1752-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345890680120601
  3. Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 2011;56 Suppl 1:84-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01299.x
  4. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:389-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60124-3
  5. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18 Suppl 3:73-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01467.x
  6. Mitov G, Heintze SD, 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;28:909-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.010
  7. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2015;7:57-70.
  8. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00010-6
  9. Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Nilner K. A prospective study of implant-supported full-arch yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal mandibular fixed dental prostheses: three-year results. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:364-9.
  10. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:22-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0
  11. Preis V, Weiser F, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of monolithic dental ceramics with different surface treatments. Quintessence Int 2013;44:393-405.
  12. Preis V, Hahnel S, Kolbeck C, Behrend D, Warkentin M, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of dental materials: a comparison of substructure ceramics, veneering ceramics, and non-precious alloys. Adv Eng Mater 2011;13:B432-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201180015
  13. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH, Ahn JS, Ryu JJ. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent 2012;40:979-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004
  14. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:935-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0589-9
  15. Mormann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;20:113-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
  16. Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Schmutz F, Trottmann A, Roos M, Hammerle CH. Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:102-12. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2011.654248
  17. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1141-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.006
  18. Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, McLaren EA, Burgess JO. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent 2014;42:1586-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008
  19. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater 2008;24:433-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016
  20. Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:111-5.
  21. Heintze SD. How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 2006;22:712-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002
  22. Passos SP, Torrealba Y, Major P, Linke B, Flores-Mir C, Nychka JA. In vitro wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2014; 23:593-601. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12167
  23. Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:245-52.
  24. Esquivel-Upshaw J, Rose W, Oliveira E, Yang M, Clark AE, Anusavice K. Randomized, controlled clinical trial of bilayer ceramic and metal-ceramic crown performance. J Prosthodont 2013;22:166-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00913.x
  25. Suputtamongkol K, Anusavice KJ, Suchatlampong C, Sithiamnuai P, Tulapornchai C. Clinical performance and wear characteristics of veneered lithia-disilicate-based ceramic crowns. Dent Mater 2008;24:667-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.033
  26. Silva NR, Thompson VP, Valverde GB, Coelho PG, Powers JM, Farah JW, Esquivel-Upshaw J. Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate restorations in vitro and in vivo. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142 Suppl 2:4S-9S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0336
  27. Stober T, Bermejo JL, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:314-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12139
  28. 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;114:358-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001
  29. Stober T, Bermejo JL, Schwindling FS, Schmitter M. Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43:621-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12409
  30. Lohbauer U, Reich S. Antagonist wear of monolithic zirconia crowns after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1165-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1872-6
  31. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Kim MJ, Hsu SM, Abdulhameed N, Jenkins R, Neal D, Ren F, Clark AE. Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent 2018;68:19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.005
  32. Gou M, Chen H, Kang J, Wang H. Antagonist enamel wear of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia posterior crowns in vivo: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:598-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.005
  33. Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:228-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60035-2
  34. Hartkamp O, Lohbauer U, Reich S. Antagonist wear by polished zirconia crowns. Int J Comput Dent 2017;20: 263-74.
  35. Schlenz MA, Schlenz MB, Wostmann B, Jungert A, Ganss C. Intraoral scanner-based monitoring of tooth wear in young adults: 12-month results. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:1869-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04162-6
  36. Garcia VD, Freire Y, Fernandez SD, Murillo BT, Sanchez MG. Application of the intraoral scanner in the diagnosis of dental wear: an in vivo study of tooth wear analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:4481.
  37. DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater 2006;22:702-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.003
  38. Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. JADA 2015;10:1-5.
  39. O'Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater 2019; 35:495-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012
  40. Derrien G, Le Menn G. Evaluation of detail reproduction for three die materials by using scanning electron microscopy and two-dimensional profilometry. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80221-5
  41. Wang L, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H, Tao Y, Ma Z. Friction and wear behaviors of dental ceramics against natural tooth enamel. J European Ceram Soc 2012;32:2599-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2012.03.021
  42. Lee A, Swain M, He L, Lyons K. Wear behavior of human enamel against lithium disilicate glass ceramic and type III gold. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1399-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.08.002
  43. Delong R, Pintado MR, Douglas WH. The wear of enamel opposing shaded ceramic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:42-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90282-F
  44. Peters MC, Delong R, Pintado MR, Pallesen U, Qvist V, Douglas WH. Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear. J Dent 1999;27:479-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00027-5
  45. Ratledge DK, Smith BG, Wilson RF. The effect of restorative materials on the wear of human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:194-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90080-9
  46. Culhaoglu A, Park J. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of two different indirect composite resins with a ceramic material, opposed to human enamel. European J Gen Dent 2013;2:274.
  47. Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Fonseca RG. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:318.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.011
  48. Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Setyo C, Picaza MG, Tribst JPM. Effect of defect size and tooth anatomy in the measurements of a 3D patient monitoring tool. Heliyon 2022;8:e12103.
  49. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent 2015;24:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000283
  50. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.