Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials

Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials

The wear of monolithic zirconia against enamel has been widely studied, but how zirconia affects different opposing restorative materials is not clear. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the depth of wear and volumetric loss of different restorative materials opposed by monolithic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2022-09, Vol.128 (3), p.505-511
Hauptverfasser: Ozkir, Serhat Emre, Bicer, Mehmet, Deste, Gonca, Karakus, Elif, Yilmaz, Burak
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 511
container_issue 3
container_start_page 505
container_title The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
container_volume 128
creator Ozkir, Serhat Emre
Bicer, Mehmet
Deste, Gonca
Karakus, Elif
Yilmaz, Burak
description The wear of monolithic zirconia against enamel has been widely studied, but how zirconia affects different opposing restorative materials is not clear. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the depth of wear and volumetric loss of different restorative materials opposed by monolithic zirconia. Sixty-six Ø10×3-mm specimens (n=11) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia, zirconia reinforced ceramic, lithium disilicate ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer. A 2-body pin-on-disk wear test was performed by using monolithic zirconia pins. The specimens were scanned with a noncontact profilometer after the tests. The scan parameters were a frame size area of 1.5×1.5 mm, frequency of 400 Hz, and scan sensitivity of 2 μm. After the evaluation of depth and volume loss, the specimens were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the differences in wear values across the specimen groups, and pairwise comparison tests were performed with a post hoc test (α=.05). Maximum depth of wear was 257.55 ±18.88 μm for lithium disilicate ceramic, 295.36 ±14.46 μm for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 421.82 ±214.49 μm for ORMOCER, 333.73 ±79.09 μm for ceramic optimized polymer, 146.27 ±22.86 μm for feldspathic ceramic, and 41.55 ±5.04 μm for monolithic zirconia. The depth of wear was not significantly different among lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer (P
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.023
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2535827588</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391321001980</els_id><sourcerecordid>2535827588</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6f47c1972fca96bf9c707dde9fa8df88ec23065d884239e9439528ffbb8b47853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUhi0EEqXwCsgjS4IvudgbVbhKRSwg2CzHPgZXTVLstBI8Pa4CM9O__JdzPoTOKckpodXlKt-EIVrox5wRRnPCc8L4AZpRIuusEgU9RDNCGMu4pPwYncS4IoSIsqYz9PYKOuDB4W7oh7UfP7zB3z6Yofca63ft-zhi652DkAZws7jOmsUj1r3Fvrc-gBlxgDgOQY9-B7jTIwSv1_EUHbkkcParc_Rye_Pc3GfLp7uHZrHMDC_KMatcURsqa-aMllXrpKlJbS1Ip4V1QoBhnFSlFaJgXIIsuCyZcK5tRVvUouRzdDH1Jgif23SJ6nw0sF7rHoZtVKzkpWB1KUSyVpPVJF4xgFOb4DsdvhQlao9SrdQfSrVHqQhXCWUKXk1BSI_sPAQVjYfewARA2cH_V_EDtDaBXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2535827588</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Ozkir, Serhat Emre ; Bicer, Mehmet ; Deste, Gonca ; Karakus, Elif ; Yilmaz, Burak</creator><creatorcontrib>Ozkir, Serhat Emre ; Bicer, Mehmet ; Deste, Gonca ; Karakus, Elif ; Yilmaz, Burak</creatorcontrib><description>The wear of monolithic zirconia against enamel has been widely studied, but how zirconia affects different opposing restorative materials is not clear. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the depth of wear and volumetric loss of different restorative materials opposed by monolithic zirconia. Sixty-six Ø10×3-mm specimens (n=11) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia, zirconia reinforced ceramic, lithium disilicate ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer. A 2-body pin-on-disk wear test was performed by using monolithic zirconia pins. The specimens were scanned with a noncontact profilometer after the tests. The scan parameters were a frame size area of 1.5×1.5 mm, frequency of 400 Hz, and scan sensitivity of 2 μm. After the evaluation of depth and volume loss, the specimens were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the differences in wear values across the specimen groups, and pairwise comparison tests were performed with a post hoc test (α=.05). Maximum depth of wear was 257.55 ±18.88 μm for lithium disilicate ceramic, 295.36 ±14.46 μm for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 421.82 ±214.49 μm for ORMOCER, 333.73 ±79.09 μm for ceramic optimized polymer, 146.27 ±22.86 μm for feldspathic ceramic, and 41.55 ±5.04 μm for monolithic zirconia. The depth of wear was not significantly different among lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer (P&lt;.05). However, the depth of wear of monolithic zirconia and feldspathic ceramic was less than that of other materials (P&lt;.001). Volume loss of lithium disilicate was 1.68 ±0.25 mm3, 1.08 ±0.35 mm3 for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 4.29 ±2.91 mm3 for ORMOCER, 2.46 ±0.63 mm3 for resin ceramic, 1.07 ±0.09 mm3 for feldspathic ceramic, and 0.19 ±0.02 mm3 for monolithic zirconia. Feldspathic ceramic and monolithic zirconia had significantly less volume loss than the other groups (P&lt;.001), and the difference between them for volume loss was statistically insignificant (P&gt;.05). The tested ceramic-based materials had favorable wear resistance compared with the tested composite resin–based ones. However, the ceramics tended to crack formation than the composite resins.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.023</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Inc</publisher><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2022-09, Vol.128 (3), p.505-511</ispartof><rights>2021 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6f47c1972fca96bf9c707dde9fa8df88ec23065d884239e9439528ffbb8b47853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6f47c1972fca96bf9c707dde9fa8df88ec23065d884239e9439528ffbb8b47853</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5952-240X ; 0000-0002-5481-0063</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391321001980$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ozkir, Serhat Emre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bicer, Mehmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deste, Gonca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakus, Elif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yilmaz, Burak</creatorcontrib><title>Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><description>The wear of monolithic zirconia against enamel has been widely studied, but how zirconia affects different opposing restorative materials is not clear. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the depth of wear and volumetric loss of different restorative materials opposed by monolithic zirconia. Sixty-six Ø10×3-mm specimens (n=11) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia, zirconia reinforced ceramic, lithium disilicate ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer. A 2-body pin-on-disk wear test was performed by using monolithic zirconia pins. The specimens were scanned with a noncontact profilometer after the tests. The scan parameters were a frame size area of 1.5×1.5 mm, frequency of 400 Hz, and scan sensitivity of 2 μm. After the evaluation of depth and volume loss, the specimens were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the differences in wear values across the specimen groups, and pairwise comparison tests were performed with a post hoc test (α=.05). Maximum depth of wear was 257.55 ±18.88 μm for lithium disilicate ceramic, 295.36 ±14.46 μm for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 421.82 ±214.49 μm for ORMOCER, 333.73 ±79.09 μm for ceramic optimized polymer, 146.27 ±22.86 μm for feldspathic ceramic, and 41.55 ±5.04 μm for monolithic zirconia. The depth of wear was not significantly different among lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer (P&lt;.05). However, the depth of wear of monolithic zirconia and feldspathic ceramic was less than that of other materials (P&lt;.001). Volume loss of lithium disilicate was 1.68 ±0.25 mm3, 1.08 ±0.35 mm3 for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 4.29 ±2.91 mm3 for ORMOCER, 2.46 ±0.63 mm3 for resin ceramic, 1.07 ±0.09 mm3 for feldspathic ceramic, and 0.19 ±0.02 mm3 for monolithic zirconia. Feldspathic ceramic and monolithic zirconia had significantly less volume loss than the other groups (P&lt;.001), and the difference between them for volume loss was statistically insignificant (P&gt;.05). The tested ceramic-based materials had favorable wear resistance compared with the tested composite resin–based ones. However, the ceramics tended to crack formation than the composite resins.</description><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUhi0EEqXwCsgjS4IvudgbVbhKRSwg2CzHPgZXTVLstBI8Pa4CM9O__JdzPoTOKckpodXlKt-EIVrox5wRRnPCc8L4AZpRIuusEgU9RDNCGMu4pPwYncS4IoSIsqYz9PYKOuDB4W7oh7UfP7zB3z6Yofca63ft-zhi652DkAZws7jOmsUj1r3Fvrc-gBlxgDgOQY9-B7jTIwSv1_EUHbkkcParc_Rye_Pc3GfLp7uHZrHMDC_KMatcURsqa-aMllXrpKlJbS1Ip4V1QoBhnFSlFaJgXIIsuCyZcK5tRVvUouRzdDH1Jgif23SJ6nw0sF7rHoZtVKzkpWB1KUSyVpPVJF4xgFOb4DsdvhQlao9SrdQfSrVHqQhXCWUKXk1BSI_sPAQVjYfewARA2cH_V_EDtDaBXw</recordid><startdate>20220901</startdate><enddate>20220901</enddate><creator>Ozkir, Serhat Emre</creator><creator>Bicer, Mehmet</creator><creator>Deste, Gonca</creator><creator>Karakus, Elif</creator><creator>Yilmaz, Burak</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-240X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5481-0063</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220901</creationdate><title>Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials</title><author>Ozkir, Serhat Emre ; Bicer, Mehmet ; Deste, Gonca ; Karakus, Elif ; Yilmaz, Burak</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6f47c1972fca96bf9c707dde9fa8df88ec23065d884239e9439528ffbb8b47853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ozkir, Serhat Emre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bicer, Mehmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deste, Gonca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakus, Elif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yilmaz, Burak</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ozkir, Serhat Emre</au><au>Bicer, Mehmet</au><au>Deste, Gonca</au><au>Karakus, Elif</au><au>Yilmaz, Burak</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><date>2022-09-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>128</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>505</spage><epage>511</epage><pages>505-511</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>The wear of monolithic zirconia against enamel has been widely studied, but how zirconia affects different opposing restorative materials is not clear. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the depth of wear and volumetric loss of different restorative materials opposed by monolithic zirconia. Sixty-six Ø10×3-mm specimens (n=11) were fabricated from monolithic zirconia, zirconia reinforced ceramic, lithium disilicate ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer. A 2-body pin-on-disk wear test was performed by using monolithic zirconia pins. The specimens were scanned with a noncontact profilometer after the tests. The scan parameters were a frame size area of 1.5×1.5 mm, frequency of 400 Hz, and scan sensitivity of 2 μm. After the evaluation of depth and volume loss, the specimens were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the differences in wear values across the specimen groups, and pairwise comparison tests were performed with a post hoc test (α=.05). Maximum depth of wear was 257.55 ±18.88 μm for lithium disilicate ceramic, 295.36 ±14.46 μm for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 421.82 ±214.49 μm for ORMOCER, 333.73 ±79.09 μm for ceramic optimized polymer, 146.27 ±22.86 μm for feldspathic ceramic, and 41.55 ±5.04 μm for monolithic zirconia. The depth of wear was not significantly different among lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced ceramic, ORMOCER, and ceramic optimized polymer (P&lt;.05). However, the depth of wear of monolithic zirconia and feldspathic ceramic was less than that of other materials (P&lt;.001). Volume loss of lithium disilicate was 1.68 ±0.25 mm3, 1.08 ±0.35 mm3 for zirconia reinforced ceramic, 4.29 ±2.91 mm3 for ORMOCER, 2.46 ±0.63 mm3 for resin ceramic, 1.07 ±0.09 mm3 for feldspathic ceramic, and 0.19 ±0.02 mm3 for monolithic zirconia. Feldspathic ceramic and monolithic zirconia had significantly less volume loss than the other groups (P&lt;.001), and the difference between them for volume loss was statistically insignificant (P&gt;.05). The tested ceramic-based materials had favorable wear resistance compared with the tested composite resin–based ones. However, the ceramics tended to crack formation than the composite resins.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.023</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-240X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5481-0063</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3913
ispartof The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2022-09, Vol.128 (3), p.505-511
issn 0022-3913
1097-6841
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2535827588
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
title Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T02%3A04%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wear%20of%20monolithic%20zirconia%20against%20different%20CAD-CAM%20and%20indirect%20restorative%20materials&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=Ozkir,%20Serhat%20Emre&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=505&rft.epage=511&rft.pages=505-511&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2535827588%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2535827588&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0022391321001980&rfr_iscdi=true