The Wear Performance of Glazed and Polished Full Contour Zirconia

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of zirconia surface finishes on the wear of an enamel analogue. 40 zirconia discs were divided into four groups: control (without finish); glazed; polished; polished and glazed. All samples were subjected to wear against steatite antagonists. The specimens underwent roughness, topographic, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and wettability analyses. Quantitative wear measurements were performed on both steatites and discs. To measure wear of steatites the weight before and after the test and the diameter after the test were used. Profilometer measurements were performed to determine the wear on discs. Roughness, volumetric wear and mass loss were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (5%), while contact angle values were analyzed with One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (5%). The polished group had the lowest roughness means, being statistically different from the other groups (p-value=0.0001). The glazed group presented the lowest steatite volumetric wear (p-value=0.0001), but not statistically different from the polished and glazed group, whereas these groups presented the highest zirconia volumetric wear, with statistically different (p-value=0.0002) compared to the others. SEM showed irregularities on the control groups surface, grooves on the polished group, and a homogeneous surface for the glazed group with a few pores. All groups presented contact angles lower than 90 degrees, characterizing hydrophilic surfaces. It can be concluded that just glazed zirconia caused less wear on the antagonist when compared to no finish and polished zirconia.

Effect of surface treatments on wear and surface properties of different CAD-CAM materials and their enamel antagonists

“…The specimens were simultaneously thermocycled (1000 cycles, 60-second holding time, 15-second transfer time, and 5 C and 55 C). [54][55][56] The CAD-CAM specimens and enamel antagonists were scanned before (baseline) and after the wear test (follow-up) 2,53 by using an intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam 4.4.1; Dentsply Sirona) to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) files (Figs. 1, 2).…”

Wear Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia against Natural Teeth in Comparison to Two Glass Ceramics with two Surface Finishing Protocols: An In-Vitro Study

“…Jung et al [4] found that more wear was found in teeth opposing dental porcelain and claimed that the addition of porcelain composite during the glaze process of zirconia is the reason behind their results. On the contrary, Alves et al [48], found that the glaze surface finish of zirconia caused less wear on antagonists that the polished ones. Their explanation was that due to the thinness and homogeneity of the glaze layer, it abraded quickly forming no debris due to fracture and caused less abrasiveness to the antagonist [48].…”

“…On the contrary, Alves et al [48], found that the glaze surface finish of zirconia caused less wear on antagonists that the polished ones. Their explanation was that due to the thinness and homogeneity of the glaze layer, it abraded quickly forming no debris due to fracture and caused less abrasiveness to the antagonist [48]. Another contradicting study was that of Passos et al [30], who found that more material wear was found in polished ceramic samples than glazed ones, they claimed that the glaze layer formed a protection to the ceramic surface and exhibited fewer cracks.…”

Shear Bond Strength of Polypropylene Fiber in Orthodontic Adhesive on Glazed Monolithic Zirconia

“…Glazing is formed by burning a thin, transparent silica glass coating on the surface or by firing the substructure up to the proper temperature for a few minutes to obtain a glossy ceramic surface [ 10 ]. Furthermore, glazed monolithic zirconia wears opposing teeth less than polished zirconia [ 11 ].…”