Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

Abstract

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.

Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness

“…3a). As opposed to findings in other laboratory studies (Jung et al, 2010;Preis et al, 2012;Rosentritt et al, 2012) the wear of enamel antagonists by feldspathic ceramic (VM) and glass ceramic (EC) was not significantly different from that of zirconium dioxide ceramics (Tab. 2).…”

“…The zero m-wear for monolithic zirconium dioxide ceramics (IN) and minimal a-wear (25.5 µm) of its enamel antagonists both impressed ( Fig.1; Table 2), even though these properties have already been reported for zirconium dioxide ceramics by recent laboratory studies (Jung et al, 2010;Preis et al, 2012;Rosentritt et al, 2012;Stawarczyk et al, 2012). The contact area of IN looked slightly polished at the end of the test, while, other than the rougher contact areas of the control facets of a-enamel against m-enamel (Fig.…”

Wear performance of bovine tooth enamel against translucent tetragonal zirconia polycrystals after different surface treatments

“…With recent developments in CAD/CAM (computeraided design/computer-assisted manufacture) technologies and with the introduction of new ceramic materials, the possibility of milling full-contour ceramic restorations without veneering has gained increasing importance and popularity. Associated with these developments of the concept that if ceramic chipping could be avoided and the wear of ceramics and antagonists could be reduced [4][5][6][7][8] , the application of the veneering porcelain has been decreasing in the clinical situation. TZP could be used for fabricating high-strength monolithic restorations 9,10) and might be indicated, especially in posterior regions.…”

Influence of ceramic surface texture on the wear of gold alloy and heat-pressed ceramics

“…This study was carried out using uniform conditions to test standardized antagonist specimens. In the previous studies 5,6,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17] , standardized antagonist specimens such as magnesium silicate and human enamel have been used. The current study employed standardized rounded rod specimens made of type 4 gold alloy and HP ceramics, both are applicable for centric holding cusps of premolars and molars.…”

“…Preis et al reported that polished zirconia yielded superior wear behavior and lower antagonistic wear compared to other ceramics 15) . Thus, polished zirconia tend to show lower wear on antagonists than other ceramics 5,6,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17] . There have been past studies using rounded rod specimen such as magnesium silicate and human enamel 5,6,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17] .…”