Lawson Nathaniel C, Janyavula Sridhar, Syklawer Sarah, McLaren Edward A, Burgess John O
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Clinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Clinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA.
J Dent. 2014 Dec;42(12):1586-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008. Epub 2014 Sep 23.
To compare the wear and opposing enamel wear of adjusted (A); adjusted and polished (AP); and adjusted and glazed (AG) zirconia and lithium disilicate.
Specimens (n=8) were prepared of lithium disilicate (A, AP, and AG), zirconia (A, AP, and AG), veneering porcelain, and enamel (control). Surface roughness was measured for each ceramic. In vitro wear was conducted in the UAB-chewing simulator (10 N vertical load/2mm slide/20 cycles/min) with lubricant (33% glycerin) for 400,000 cycles. Isolated cusps of extracted molars were used as antagonists. Scans of the cusps and ceramics were taken at baseline and 400,000 cycles with a non-contact profilometer and super-imposed to determine wear. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests (alpha=0.05).
A and AP zirconia showed no detectable signs of wear, and the veneering porcelain demonstrated the most wear. All other ceramics showed significantly less volumetric loss than the veneering porcelain, comparable to enamel-enamel wear. Veneering porcelain produced the most opposing enamel wear (2.15 ± 0.58 mm(3)). AP lithium disilicate and zirconia showed the least amount of enamel wear (0.36 ± 0.09 mm(3) and 0.33 ± 0.11 mm(3) respectively). AG lithium disilicate had statistically similar enamel wear as AP lithium disilicate, but A lithium disilicate had more enamel wear. A and AG zirconia had more enamel wear than AP zirconia. No statistically significant difference was seen between the enamel-enamel group and any other group except the veneering porcelain.
Zirconia has less wear than lithium disilicate. Wear of enamel opposing adjusted lithium disilicate and zirconia decreased following polishing.
Zirconia experiences less and lithium disilicate experiences equivalent occlusal wear as natural enamel. It is preferable to polish zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment to make them wear compatible with enamel. Veneering of zirconia and lithium disilicate should be avoided in areas of occlusal contact to prevent enamel wear.
比较调整后(A)、调整并抛光后(AP)以及调整并上釉后(AG)的氧化锆和二硅酸锂的磨损情况以及其对颌牙釉质的磨损情况。
制备二硅酸锂(A、AP和AG)、氧化锆(A、AP和AG)、饰面瓷和牙釉质(对照)的样本(n = 8)。测量每种陶瓷的表面粗糙度。在UAB咀嚼模拟器中进行体外磨损试验(垂直载荷10 N/滑动2 mm/每分钟20次循环),使用润滑剂(33%甘油),持续400,000次循环。使用拔除磨牙的孤立牙尖作为对颌牙。在基线和400,000次循环时,使用非接触式轮廓仪对牙尖和陶瓷进行扫描,并进行叠加以确定磨损情况。数据采用方差分析和Tukey-Kramer事后检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。
A组和AP组氧化锆未显示出可检测到的磨损迹象,饰面瓷的磨损最为明显。所有其他陶瓷的体积损失均显著低于饰面瓷,与牙釉质-牙釉质磨损相当。饰面瓷导致的对颌牙釉质磨损最多(2.15 ± 0.58 mm³)。AP组二硅酸锂和氧化锆的牙釉质磨损量最少(分别为0.36 ± 0.09 mm³和0.33 ± 0.11 mm³)。AG组二硅酸锂的牙釉质磨损在统计学上与AP组二硅酸锂相似,但A组二硅酸锂的牙釉质磨损更多。A组和AG组氧化锆的牙釉质磨损比AP组氧化锆更多。除饰面瓷组外,牙釉质-牙釉质组与其他任何组之间均未观察到统计学上的显著差异。
氧化锆的磨损比二硅酸锂少。调整后的二硅酸锂和氧化锆对颌牙釉质的磨损在抛光后减少。
氧化锆的磨损比天然牙釉质少,二硅酸锂的咬合磨损与天然牙釉质相当。调整后对氧化锆和二硅酸锂进行抛光,使其磨损情况与牙釉质相匹配是较好的选择。在咬合接触区域应避免对氧化锆和二硅酸锂进行饰面处理,以防止牙釉质磨损。