Visual Summary on Instagram from Professor Markus Blatz
1. Zirconia Wear Clinical Study Photo overview - Professor Markus Blatz
2. Zirconia Wear Polished Versus Glazed ZR Lab Studies - Professor Markus Blatz
Jay Rahesh Dondani, Vikrant Pardeshi, Arti Gangurde, Almas Shaikh, Aushili Mahule, Prachi Deval
PMID: 35998079 DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7798
Abstract
Purpose: To comparatively evaluate the amount of wear of natural enamel against a glazed full coverage monolithic zirconia crown and a polished monolithic zirconia crown at 6 and 12 months.
Materials and methods: Thirty subjects within the age range of 18 to 35 years participated in this study. The subjects received a total of 60 single crowns, which were divided into two groups: (1) 30 glazed monolithic zirconia crowns opposed by natural enamel (group A); and (2) 30 polished monolithic zirconia crowns opposed by natural enamel (group B). Each subject received a crown from both groups, placed bilaterally in endodontically treated maxillary or mandibular first molars. An impression was made of the opposing arch at 24 hours, 6 months, and 12 months. The resulting casts were scanned with a 3D optical scanner. The recall scans were superimposed and compared to baseline scans using 3D AutoCAD software. A control group was included to compare the wear values to natural enamel against natural enamel.
Results: No significant difference (P = .855) was found in enamel wear between groups A (42.80 μm) and B (42.50 μm) after 6 months of use. However, a significant difference (P < .05) in enamel wear was found between group A (81.87 μm) and group B (71.43 μm) after 12 months of use.
Conclusion: Glazed monolithic zirconia crowns cause more wear to the opposing enamel than polished monolithic zirconia crowns after 12 months of clinical use.
Prachi Deval, Jyoti Tembhurne, Arti Gangurde, Manish Chauhan, Niraja Jaiswal, Devesh Kumar Tiwari
PMID: 33750998 DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6598
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the wear of natural enamel against a metal-ceramic and a monolithic zirconia crown, with the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the wear of enamel between antagonist metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia crowns.
Materials and methods: In 30 subjects (irrespective of sex and within the age range of 18 to 40 years), two bilaterally opposing molars (maxillary/mandibular) were prepared to receive monolithic zirconia or metal-ceramic crowns with feldspathic porcelain veneer. A polyvinyl siloxane impression of the opposing arch was taken at the time of cementation and 1 year after cementation. Casts were poured in type III gypsum and scanned, and the images were superimposed on each other. AutoCAD was used to calculate the difference between two images, which corresponded to the linear wear of the antagonist teeth. Statistical analysis of the data was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey honest significant difference test for intergroup comparison. The P value obtained by one-way ANOVA was 1.1102e-16 (< .05), and by post hoc Tukey test was .001 (< .01).
Results: The mean wear of enamel against enamel was 14.8 ± 1.3 μm, enamel against metal-ceramic was 87.1 ± 18.3 μm, and enamel against monolithic zirconia was 59.4 ± 13.6 μm. The P values obtained; ie, 1.1102e-16 (one-way ANOVA) and 0.001 (post hoc Tukey), indicated that the difference in wear of the antagonist tooth between monolithic zirconia and feldspathic porcelain was significant.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that monolithic zirconia causes less wear of the antagonist tooth than feldspathic porcelain.
Yasamin R M Aljomard 1, Elif Çiğdem Altunok 2, Haluk Barış Kara 3
PMID: 34623015 DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12823
Abstract
Objective: An assessment was performed to identify and evaluate dental enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia restoration. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Evidence, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2020.
Material and methods: Studies were selected for systematic review according to the inclusion (articles conducted on the wear of enamel samples opposing monolithic zirconia) and exclusion (case reports, non-English articles, and monolithic zirconia samples facing other materials rather than human enamel) criteria. Of those, articles on polished and glazed monolithic zirconia subjected to a 50 N vertical load with a range of 240,000-250,000 cycles, equivalent to 1 year of in vivo mastication, were included in the meta-analysis.
Results: In total, 3968 articles were pooled. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the enamel wear against monolithic zirconia was within the statistically accepted level. Moreover, the polished monolithic zirconia surface caused less enamel wear than the glazed surface.
Conclusion: This review indicates that monolithic zirconia restorations cause acceptable antagonist enamel wear. Moreover, the meta-analysis results agreed that the final restoration's surface texture plays an essential role in the wear process.
Clinical significance: Monolithic zirconia restorations have been widely used in dental practice because they eliminate the chipping problems resulting from using veneered restorations. With recent technology development, monolithic zirconia has obtained more esthetic features and a more natural look. However, due to the high strength and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia, wear on the antagonist's teeth was detected. The results showed that this wear amount was statistically acceptable and lower than other ceramics such as feldspathic porcelain and enamel. Furthermore, surface treatment methods must be applied to minimize tooth wear, as polished or glazed surfaces interfere with enamel loss.
Was this article helpful?
That’s Great!
Thank you for your feedback
Sorry! We couldn't be helpful
Thank you for your feedback
Feedback sent
We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article