Ex Vivo Assessment of Natural Teeth Wear against Zirconia and Novel Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Composite Crowns in Primary Teeth by a Three-Dimensional Assessment Method

Abstract

Objectives. The main purpose of the study was to assess the material wear, antagonistic natural primary teeth wear, and microhardness of zirconia (ZR), a recently launched novel glass-fiber-reinforced composite crown (GFRC). The research question was, are these aesthetic crowns resulting in antagonistic natural primary tooth wear and the crown material itself? Methods. Forty-five primary canines were divided into three groups (15 per group) and mounted against Zr (Group A), GFRC (Group B), and natural teeth as control (Group C) in the wear test machine. All samples were assessed for surface wear with pre- and post-3-dimensional scanning. In addition, microhardness was assessed for all three groups. Results. The mean microhardness value for the Zr disc was 1157 ± 7 HV; for the GFRC disc, it was 29.35 ± 2 HV; while with natural teeth, it was 105 ± 4 HV. There was a statistically significant difference in teeth wear in the prescan and postscan in the natural tooth ( p < 0.05 ) group, highly significant difference ( p < 0.001 ) in the ZR group, and no significant difference in the GFRC group. Conclusion. There is more significant wear loss of glass-fiber-reinforced composite discs as compared to zirconia. In addition, the wear of the antagonistic tooth with zirconia and natural teeth is more remarkable than with GFRC. There is a vast difference of microhardness between natural teeth and zirconia (almost 10 times higher) which suggests further scope of study. Clinical Relevance. Pediatric dentistry deals with the transition of dentition from primary to permanent through mixed dentition. Selection of restorative material needs to be done cautiously when we are dealing with primary teeth and young permanent teeth as antagonistic teeth. Wear of the crown material itself and opposing natural teeth are essential factors that should be considered in selecting crowns in clinical practice. The present study results can be extrapolated to clinical practice, and the practitioner can consider various factors in selecting full-coverage crowns for primary teeth. The vast difference in aesthetic crowns and natural teeth microhardness indicates a further need for research. Additionally, there is no literature published for the recently launched GFRCs.

Effect of Finishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Fatigue Strength of a High-Translucent Zirconia

“…By choosing materials with lower surface roughness, the dentist and the dental technician can reduce the risk of bacterial plaque retention and improve the long-term success of the dental treatments [ 10 , 13 , 21 , 30 ]. Additionally, it can facilitate proper maintenance and cleaning of dental materials to prevent the buildup of bacterial plaque [ 25 , 30 ].…”

“…Therefore, based on the maximum roughness threshold recommended by the previous research of Jones et al [29], the finishing protocols applied in our study would be considered clinically acceptable in terms of surface roughness, even though some differences were observed between the groups. By choosing materials with lower surface roughness, the dentist and the dental technician can reduce the risk of bacterial plaque retention and improve the long-term success of the dental treatments [10,13,21,30]. Additionally, it can facilitate proper maintenance and cleaning of dental materials to prevent the buildup of bacterial plaque [25,30].…”

“…Recent studies highlight wear in glaze and stain layers of ceramics due to factors like antagonist contact and brushing [4,5]. Limited data exist on zirconia's wear during use and the glaze's role in reliability [8][9][10]. Comprehensive characterization aids clinicians in balancing the esthetics and durability of zirconia restorations, including surface quality.…”

Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of NuSmile Pedodontics Zirconia Crowns in Pulp-Treated Primary Teeth—2 Years Follow-Up Study

“…However, as per manufacturer recommendations, the luting cement of choice for prefabricated zirconium crowns is bioactive resin-based glass ionomer cement which requires good gingival bleeding control prior to cementation. Numerous published studies have highlighted the success of resin-reinforced glass ionomers, 27 28 but a recent study conducted 29 concluded that packable conventional glass ionomer cement is more retentive than bioactive cement for the cementation of primary Zirconia crowns.…”

The use of aesthetic paediatric full coverage restorations among paediatric dental practitioners: an international survey

“…Fiberglass primary crowns, which are fabricated from fiber mesh sheets impeded in resin, were recently introduced. However, a recent randomized controlled study showed such crowns to have low wear resistance, colour deterioration, and poor gingival health with plaque retention [23].…”