Wear of ceramics systems with different surfaceapplications in a chewing simulator

Main Article Content

Mehmet Çağatay Ulucan
Giray Bolayır
Ayşegül Saygın
Koray Soygun

Abstract

Objective:   This study was aimed to compare the wear of four types of the ceramic dental materials with different surface treatments.


Material and Methods: Porcelain (low-fusing feldspathic, monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate glass, and leucite glass-ceramic) samples (9 x 3 mm) were prepared with different surface treatments (glazed and mechanical polished). Samples were mechanically loaded in a chewing simulator (600.000 cyles of 50N) and 64 teeth were used to simulate as the antagonist. To evaluate the wear of the samples before and after the test, samples were scanned by 3D scanner, Dental Wings 7 Series. Then they were transformed into the digital platform. Surface analysis was performed by using an optical profilometer and scanning electron microscope. A sensitive digital scale was used for weight measurements of antagonist's teeth.


Results: It was a significant difference between the volume values of the groups with mechanical polish and the groups with glaze, except for zirconia samples (p<0.05). While the least change in volume and surface roughness was observed in the zirconia mechanic polished group (ZP), this change was not statistically significant (p>0.05). In terms of the weight measurement results of the antagonist teeth, while  leucite reinforced overglazed group (PRG) has the highest weight loss as a result of wear, ZP group has the least weight loss.


Conclusion: It was concluded that glazed groups of ceramics lose more substances than polished groups, and that causes more wear on antagonist teeth. Zirconia ceramics showed less substance loss, and that causes less wear on antagonist teeth.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
UlucanM. Çağatay, BolayırG., SaygınA., & SoygunK. (2020). Wear of ceramics systems with different surfaceapplications in a chewing simulator. Medical Science and Discovery, 7(10), 670-679. https://doi.org/10.36472/msd.v7i10.427
Section
Research Article

References

1. Christensen GJ. (1994). Ceramic vs. porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns: give your patients a choice. J Am Dent Assoc. 125(3): 311-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0027

2. Yoshinari M, Dérand T. (1994). Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 7(4):329-338.

3. McLean JW. (2001). Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent. 85(1) 61-66. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.112545

4. Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. (2008). Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater. 24(11): 1556-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.028

5. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. (2012). Phillips' science of dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis (Missouri): Elsevier Health Sciences.

6. Kawai K, Urano M. (2001). Adherence of plaque components to different restorative materials. Oper Dent. 26(4): 396-400.

7. Al-Wahadni A. (2006). An in vitro investigation into the surface roughness of 2 glazed, unglazed, and refinished ceramic materials. Quintessence Int. 37(4):311-317.

8. Al-Wahadni A, Muir Martin D. (1998). Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 64:580-583.

9. Stober T, Bermejo JL, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M. (2014) Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 41(4): 314-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12139

10. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. (2005). Effect of surface roughness https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00094.x on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 17(2): 102-108.

11. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. (1997). Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 13(4): 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3

12. Metzler KT, Woody RD, Miller AW, Miller BH. (1999). In vitro investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 81(3): 356-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70280-5

13. Adachi LK, Saiki M, de Campos TN, Adachi EM, Shinkai RS. (2009). Initial enamel wear of glazed and polished leucite-based porcelains with different fusing temperatures. Gen Dent. 57(4): 363-367.

14. DeLong R. (2006). Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 22(8): 702-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.003

15. Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann M. (2012). In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dent Mater. 28(4): 449-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.024

16. Komine F, Tomic M, Gerds T, Strub JR. (2004) Influence of different adhesive resin cements on the fracture strength and hardness of aluminum oxide ceramic posterior crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 92(4): 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.018

17. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. (2013). The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 109(1):22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0

18. Choi JW, et al. (2016). Wear of primary teeth caused by opposed all-ceramic or stainless steel crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 8(1): 43-52. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.43

19. Vrijhoef M, Letzel H, Hendriks F. (1985) A method to determine the loss of substance of dental restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 12(1): 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb00615.x

20. Heintze S, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. (2008). Wear of ceramic and antagonist—a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater. 24(4):433-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016

21. Al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Smith GM. (1999). Three-body wear associated with three ceramics and enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 82(4): 476-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70037-5

22. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. (2016) Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 115(2): 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.07.011

23. Dahl BL, Øilo G. (1994). In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. Quintessence Int 25(8).

24. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH et al. (2012) Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent 40(11), 979-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004

25. Seghi R, Rosenstiel S, Bauer P. (1991).Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res. 70(3): 221-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345910700031301

26. Jagger D, Harrison A. (1994). An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 72(3): 320-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90347-6

27. Piconi C, Maccauro G. (1999) Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 20(1):1-25.

28. Kelly JR. (2004). Dental ceramics: current thinking and trends. Dent Clin N Am. 48(2):513-530.

29. Ratledge DK, Smith BG , Wilson RF. (1994). The effect of restorative materials on the wear of human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 72(2):194-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90080-9

30. White S, Miklus VG, McLaren EA, Lang LA, Caputo AA. (2005) Flexural strength of a layered zirconia and porcelain dental all-ceramic system. J Prosthet Dent 94(2):125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.007

31. Amer R, Kürklü D, Kateeb E, Seghi RR. (2014). Three-body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments. J Prosthet Dent. 112(5): 1151-1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.021

32. Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. (2000). Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(6): 664-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70068-0

33. Martínez-Gomis J, Bizar J, Anglada JM, Samsó J, Peraire M. (2003). Comparative evaluation of four finishing systems on one ceramic surface. Int J Prosthodont. 16(1):74-77.

34. Silva MA, et al. (2006) Effect of whitening gels on the surface roughness of restorative materials in situ. Dent Mater. 22(10): 919-924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.029

35. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. (2007). Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med . 18(1):155-163. DOI 10.1007/s10856-006-0675-8

36. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. (2000) Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 15(3):331-334.

37. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. (2014). Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 112(5):1141-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.006

38. Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. (2010). A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont. 2(3):111-115. doi: 10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.111

39. Kohles SS, Clark MB, Brown CA, Kenealy JN. (2004). Direct assessment of profilometric roughness variability from typical implant surface types. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 19(4):510-516.