A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems

Rupawala, Amreen; Musani, Smita; Madanshetty, Pallavi; Dugal, Ramandeep; Shah, Umang D; Sheth, Ektaa J

doi:10.4103/0972-4052.194940

Cited by 34 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study shows no statistical difference between polished zirconia and polished lithium disilicate crown. The probable reason for it could be a monolithic crown; it is in accordance with the studies by Rupawala et al , Palmer et al , and Lawson et al [ 9 24 25 26 ]…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative evaluation of natural enamel wear against polished yitrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate – An in vivo study

Nazirkar

Patil

Shelke

et al. 2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare wear of the natural teeth against polished yttrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate crowns. Study Setting and Design: Experimental type of study. Materials and Methods: Polished yttrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated and given to 15 patients each (n=15). Crowns were fabricated opposing natural tooth. Patients were recalled after 1year and impression were recorded with opposing arch and baseline and final cast were scanned and superimposed using 3 D scanner. Statistical Analysis Used: Data collected by experiments were computerized and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. The normality of the data was checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The data were normally distributed. Statistical analysis was done by using tools of descriptive statistics such as Mean, and Standard Deviation for representing quantitative data (enamel wear measured in μm) Parametric tests: Student t-test for intergroup comparison was done. Results: No statistical difference were found between wear of opposing enamel for polished yttrium tetragonal and polished lithium disiliacte crowns [p=0.446]. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that polished lithium disilicate showed better clinical outcome than polished yttrium tetragonal zirconia, though the evaluated data was statistically non significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative evaluation of natural enamel wear against polished yitrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate – An in vivo study

Nazirkar

Patil

Shelke

et al. 2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in accordance with study conducted by Stober et al ., Rupawala, et al ., and Palmer et al . [272829] who emphasized the need for precise polishing of the surface of restoration after occlusal adjustment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the effect of monolithic and layered zirconia on natural teeth wear: An in vitro study

Gundugollu

Yalavarthy

Krishna

et al. 2018

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare wear of the natural teeth against monolithic zirconia and layered zirconia with different surface finishing procedures such as unpolished unglazed, polished unglazed, and polished glazed. Materials and Methods: The two-bodied wear test was carried out in a custom-made oral wear simulator with a sample size of 60 zirconia specimen opposing natural teeth. Zirconia specimen was divided into two groups layered and monolithic which further subdivided into unpolished unglazed, polished unglazed, and polished glazed groups ( n = 10). The amount of enamel wear occurred for 250,000 cycles when opposed by monolithic and layered zirconia with different surface finishing methods was measured by loss of height of each tooth using three-dimensional scanning and loss of weight using sensitive balance at specified time intervals of 50,000 cycles during masticatory test considering baseline measurement as control. The data were statistically analyzed to compare the enamel wear against layered and monolithic zirconia with different surface finishing protocols by repeated ANOVA test. Results: Monolithic polished unglazed zirconia showed least tooth wear followed by monolithic polished glazed zirconia, monolithic unpolished unglazed zirconia, and layered unpolished unglazed zirconia showed highest tooth wear in terms of both height loss and weight loss ( P < 0.01). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, monolithic polished unglazed zirconia is wear-friendly to the opposing natural teeth, and polished surfaces in both the groups showed less tooth wear compared to the glazed surface of zirconia specimen.

show abstract

“…The wear properties of monolithic zirconia were evaluated in many in vitro studies (Table S2) [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110]. Some of them compared the wear properties of various restorative materials including monolithic zirconia [1,74,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92] and others compared the wear properties of monolithic zirconia following different ways of surface treatment [77,78,80,81,84,92,93,94,95,96,97].…”

Section: Wear Properties Of Monolithic Zirconiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Monolithic Zirconia: An Update to Current Knowledge. Optical Properties, Wear, and Clinical Performance

Rigos²,

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper was to update the knowledge concerning the wear, translucency, as well as clinical performance of monolithic zirconia ceramics, aiming at highlighting their advantages and weaknesses through data presented in recent literature. New ultra-translucent and multicolor monolithic zirconia ceramics present considerably improved aesthetics and translucency, which, according to the literature reviewed, is similar to those of the more translucent lithium disilicate ceramics. A profound advantage is their high strength at thin geometries preserving their mechanical integrity. Based on the reviewed articles, monolithic zirconia ceramics cause minimal wear of antagonists, especially if appropriately polished, although no evidence still exists regarding the ultra-translucent compositions. Concerning the survival of monolithic zirconia restorations, the present review demonstrates the findings of the existing short-term studies, which reveal promising results after evaluating their performance for up to 5 or 7 years. Although a significant increase in translucency has been achieved, new translucent monolithic zirconia ceramics have to be further evaluated both in vitro and in vivo for their long-term potential to preserve their outstanding properties. Due to limited studies evaluating the wear properties of ultra-translucent material, no sound conclusions can be made, whereas well-designed clinical studies are urgently needed to enlighten issues of prognosis and long-term survival.

show abstract

A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems

Cited by 34 publications

References 27 publications

Comparative evaluation of natural enamel wear against polished yitrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate – An in vivo study

Comparative evaluation of natural enamel wear against polished yitrium tetragonal zirconia and polished lithium disilicate – An in vivo study

Comparison of the effect of monolithic and layered zirconia on natural teeth wear: An in vitro study

Monolithic Zirconia: An Update to Current Knowledge. Optical Properties, Wear, and Clinical Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About