Paper: Wear of Ceramics and Enamel in artificial chewing simulator (AADR Annual Meeting (March 21-24, 2012))

Wednesday, March 21, 2012: 2:30 p.m. - 4 p.m.

Presentation Type: Oral Session

S. JANYAVULA, S. SINGHAL, D. KOJIC, D. CAKIR, P. BECK, L. RAMP, and J. BURGESS, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Objective:

�To evaluate the effect of polished, glazed, aged and adjusted zirconia on opposing enamel.

Methods:

�The study (n=8) included 5 groups of zirconia ceramic (Table),� a veneering porcelain (Ceramco 3) and enamel (control). The cusps of molars were standardized with a tapered diamond (Brasseler/USA) to serve as the opposing enamel tooth stylus. The ceramic and tooth specimens were mounted in holders using acrylic resin, scanned to determine surface roughness (Ra) and then load cycled in a newly developed UAB-chewing simulator (10N vertical load/2mm slide/20cycles/min). A solution of artificial saliva (33.3% glycerin/66.6 % water) was used as third body media.� PVS impressions (3M ESPE/USA) of each opposing enamel cusp were taken at baseline, 200,000 and 400,000 cycles and poured with vacuum mixed die stone (WhipMix/USA). The stone models were separated from the impression and scanned using a 3D non-contact surface profilometer (Proscan 2000/UK). Scans from baseline were compared to scans obtained after 200,000 and 400,000 load cycles and were super-imposed (Proform/UK) to determine enamel and ceramic wear (mm³). Data was analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc tests (p=0.05).

Results:

�Mean�SD

Ceramic volume loss(mm³)

Opposing enamel volume loss (mm³)

Original roughness (�)

Cycles

�200,000

400,000

�200,000

�400,000

1

Polished zirconia

0.00�0.0^a

0.00�0.0^a

0.11�0.04^a

0.21�0.05^a

0.17�0.07

2

Glazed zirconia

0.381�0.1^c,d

0.62�0.16^c,d

0.87�0.21^c,d

1.18�0.2^c,d

0.76�0.12

3

Polished then reglazed zirconia

0.27�0.06^c

0.49�0.10^c

0.59�0.1^c

0.88�0.12^c

0.69�0.1

4

Glazed and adjusted Zirconia

0.32�0.08^b

0.53�0.09^b

0.29�0.15^b

0.43�0.19^b

3.8�0.2

5

Artificially aged zirconia

0.00�0.00^a,b

0.00�0.00^a

0.16�0.04^a,b

0.25�0.05^a

0.23�0.04

6

Ceramco3

0.87�0.1^b

0.42�0.11^b

1.46�0.5^b

2.15�0.5^b

2.6�1.1

7

Enamel

0.24�0.08^d

1.29�0.1^d

0.29�0.21^d

0.49�0.2^d

1.6�0.16

Similar superscripts represent statistically similar groups.

Conclusions :

- Polished zirconia wears enamel the least (p<.05).

- Glazed zirconia had the greatest enamel wear (p=.05).

- Ceramco 3 veneering porcelain had significantly greater wear than all other ceramics. Supported in part by a grant from Ivoclar.

This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source: Ivoclar

Keywords: Ceramics and Prosthodontics

See more of: Keynote Address and Reliability, Fatigue, and Wear Behavior of Ceramics
See more of: Dental Materials 3: Ceramic-based Materials and Cements

<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>

		Ceramic volume loss(mm³)		Opposing enamel volume loss (mm³)			Original roughness (�)
		Cycles
		�200,000	400,000		�200,000	�400,000
1	Polished zirconia	0.00�0.0^a	0.00�0.0^a		0.11�0.04^a	0.21�0.05^a	0.17�0.07
2	Glazed zirconia	0.381�0.1^c,d	0.62�0.16^c,d		0.87�0.21^c,d	1.18�0.2^c,d	0.76�0.12
3	Polished then reglazed zirconia	0.27�0.06^c	0.49�0.10^c		0.59�0.1^c	0.88�0.12^c	0.69�0.1
4	Glazed and adjusted Zirconia	0.32�0.08^b	0.53�0.09^b		0.29�0.15^b	0.43�0.19^b	3.8�0.2
5	Artificially aged zirconia	0.00�0.00^a,b	0.00�0.00^a		0.16�0.04^a,b	0.25�0.05^a	0.23�0.04
6	Ceramco3	0.87�0.1^b	0.42�0.11^b		1.46�0.5^b	2.15�0.5^b	2.6�1.1
7	Enamel	0.24�0.08^d	1.29�0.1^d		0.29�0.21^d	0.49�0.2^d	1.6�0.16

26 Wear of Ceramics and Enamel in artificial chewing simulator