Esthetic Restorative Materials and Opposing Enamel Wear

Olivera, Anna Belsuzarri; Marques, Márcia Martins

doi:10.2341/07-95

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was noticeable that polished areas are visible only on enamel/steatite opposing zirconia ceramics. After wear tests with porcelain, provoked wear [29] and ploughing on the antagonist surface could be determined. SEM pictures on porcelain specimens revealed circular defects, which are supposed to be abraded cone cracks [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the two-body wear of different ceramics. Two-body wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator with steatite and enamel antagonists, respectively. Specimens were loaded in a pin-on-block design with a vertical load of 50 N for 1.2 × 10(5) cycles; (f = 1.6 Hz; lateral movement, 1 mm; mouth opening: 2 mm). Human enamel was used as a reference. Three zirconia ceramics, three veneering porcelains, two glass-infiltrated and one lithium disilicate ceramic were investigated. Veneering and lithium disilicate ceramics were glazed before testing. Surface roughness Ra (SP6, Perthen-Feinprüf, G) and wear depth were determined using a 3D scanner (Laserscan 3D, Willytec, G). SEM (Quanta FEG 400, FEI, USA) pictures of the worn specimens and antagonists were made for evaluating wear performance. Veneering porcelain provided wear traces between 71.2 and 124.1 μm (enamel antagonist) and 117.4 and 274.1 μm (steatite). Wear of the steatite antagonists varied between 0.618 and 2.85 mm². No wear was found for zirconia and glass-infiltrated substructure ceramics. Also, no wear was found for the corresponding antagonists. Wear of specimens and antagonists was strongly material dependent. No visible wear was found on zirconia and glass-infiltrated ceramics. Porcelain and lithium disilicate ceramic showed a comparable or lower wear than the enamel reference. Antagonist wear was found to be lower when specimens were made of substructure oxide ceramics instead of veneering porcelain. From the point of wear testing, zirconia may be used for the fabrication of fixed dental prosthesis without veneering.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The higher standard deviations in this group affirm this assumption. Other studies have, furthermore, shown that ceramics or ceramic veneers cause greater wear of opposing dentition than composite materials 5,6) . This is an advantage of composite restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides good chemical properties and low wear, the esthetics of ceramics are excellent. In contrast, some disadvantages such as abrasiveness to opposing tooth structures [4][5][6] , chipping behavior 7) , invasive preparation design and costs have been reported. Resin composite restorations might be an alternative which is able to overcome those disadvantages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years in service

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare differences between the wear behavior of two types of metal-free resin composite crown with a control after three years in clinical service. Sixty-six participants needing one to three posterior single crowns were fitted with 120 crowns. Abutment teeth were randomly assigned to three groups: 40 resin composite crowns with fiber-reinforced framework, 40 resin composite crowns without fiber-reinforced framework, and 40 metal-ceramic crowns. To assess wear, gypsum replicas of the crowns were fabricated and scanned with a 3D laser scanner at baseline and after three years. Differences between the groups were analyzed by use of mixedeffects regression models. Wear of resin composite crowns with fiber-reinforced framework (p=0.0043) and resin composite crowns without framework (p=0.0246) was significantly greater than in the metal-ceramic group. Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years was significantly greater than that of metal-ceramic crowns, but the wear was still clinically acceptable.

show abstract

“…1,2 Even though the mechanical and optical properties of the ceramic materials are important, many variables may contribute to the predictability and clinical longevity of all-ceramic restorations, including the adhesive and luting system used, the curing mechanism, the light-curing unit, and the microstructure and thickness of the ceramic. 3 Resin cements are necessary to bond porcelain and glass-ceramic resto-…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the interposition of ceramic spacers on the degree of conversion and the hardness of resin cements

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated: I) the effect of photo-activation through ceramics on the degree of conversion (DC) and on the Knoop hardness (KHN) of light-and dual-cured resin cements; and II) two different protocols for obtaining the spectra of uncured materials, to determine the DC of a dual-cured resin cement. Thin films of cements were photoactivated through ceramics [feldspathic porcelain (FP); lithium disilicate glass-ceramics of low translucency (e.max-LT), medium opacity (e.max-MO) and high translucency (e.max-HT); glass-infiltrated alumina composite (IC) and polycrystalline zirconia (ZR)] with thicknesses of 1.5 and 2.0 mm. DC was analyzed by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Two protocols were used to obtain the spectra of the uncured materials: I) base and catalyst pastes were mixed, and II) thin films of base and catalyst pastes were obtained separately, and an average was obtained. KHN assessment was performed with cylindrical specimens. The results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The light-cured cement showed higher DC (61.9%) than the dual-cured cement (55.7%). The DC varied as follows: FP (65.4%), e.max-HT (65.1%), e.max-LT (61.8%), e.max-MO (60.9%), ZR (54.8%), and IC (44.9%). The light-cured cement showed lower KHN (22.0) than the dual-cured (25.6) cement. The cements cured under 1.5 mm spacers showed higher KHN (26.2) than when polymerized under 2.0 mm ceramics (21.3). Regarding the two protocols, there were significant differences only in three groups. Thus, both methods can be considered appropriate. The physical and mechanical properties of resin cements may be affected by the thickness and microstructure of the ceramic material interposed during photo-activation.

show abstract

Esthetic Restorative Materials and Opposing Enamel Wear

Cited by 26 publications

References 30 publications

Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years in service

Influence of the interposition of ceramic spacers on the degree of conversion and the hardness of resin cements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About