Clinical performance and wear characteristics of veneered lithia-disilicate-based ceramic crowns

Abstract

Objectives-The objectives of this study were to characterize the clinical performance and wear characteristics of lithia-disilicate-based ceramic crowns.Methods-Thirty posterior crowns were made using the heat-pressing technique and lithiadisilicate-based core ceramic. Subjects were recalled annually. The quality of crowns and adjacent gingival tissues were examined using nine criteria for acceptability. All crowns were examined and ranked from 4 (Excellent) to 1 (Unacceptable) for each criterion. Impressions were made for replica models at each appointment. Wear characteristics of dental ceramic and enamel were obtained by comparing the surface of the original model with the follow-up model using a laser scanner.Results-Twenty nine subjects returned for the one-year recall examination. The maximum clenching force for the 30 subjects ranged from 125 to 815 N. All clinical criteria were ranked good to excellent at the one-year recall exam and no fractures were observed. The mean occlusal wear volumes for the ceramic crowns after one year were 0.19 (0.065) mm 3 for premolar sites and 0.34 (0.08) mm 3 for molar sites. The mean occlusal wear volumes of opposing enamel after one year were 0.21 (0.06) mm 3 for premolar teeth and 0.50 (0.22) mm 3 for molar teeth. The mean occlusal wear volume of ceramic molar crowns was significantly lower than the volume of enamel wear of the opposing teeth (p≤0.05).Conclusions-The quality of the overall prostheses and the gingival tissues were acceptable after one year. The mean occlusal wear volume of ceramic molar crowns was significantly lower than the enamel wear volume of the opposing teeth.

Comparison of four monolithic zirconia materials with conventional ones: Contrast ratio, grain size, four-point flexural strength and two-body wear

“…Since dental materials should ideally present wear behavior similar to that of enamel, the wear of dental materials is usually characterized in relation to that of dental tissues. These considerations imply that restorative materials, such as ceramics, should not damage natural antagonistic teeth (Preis et al, 2011;Suputtamongkol et al, 2008). Unlike previous studies (Preis et al, 2011;Stawarczyk et al, 2013b;Stawarczyk et al 2013c), no fractures of the enamel antagonists were observed in this study.…”

Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics

“…It is known that antagonist wear highly depends on the opposing ceramic materials [22] and the testing conditions [2]. Under clinical conditions, enamel antagonistic wear is shown to be higher than ceramic wear [23]. It is easy to understand that with varying force, sliding (roughness) and environmental conditions (e.g.…”

Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists

“…Since dental materials should ideally present wear behaviour similar to that of enamel, the wear of dental materials is usually characterized in relation to that of dental tissues. These considerations imply that restorative materials, such as ceramics, should not damage natural antagonistic teeth [18,25].…”