Comparative wear ranking of dental restorative materials utilizing different wear simulation modes

Enamel wear against monolithic zirconia restorations: A meta-analysis and systematic review of in vitro studies

OBJECTIVE

An assessment was performed to identify and evaluate dental enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia restoration. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Evidence, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2020.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Studies were selected for systematic review according to the inclusion (articles conducted on the wear of enamel samples opposing monolithic zirconia) and exclusion (case reports, non-English articles, and monolithic zirconia samples facing other materials rather than human enamel) criteria. Of those, articles on polished and glazed monolithic zirconia subjected to a 50 N vertical load with a range of 240,000-250,000 cycles, equivalent to 1 year of in vivo mastication, were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 3968 articles were pooled. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the enamel wear against monolithic zirconia was within the statistically accepted level. Moreover, the polished monolithic zirconia surface caused less enamel wear than the glazed surface.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that monolithic zirconia restorations cause acceptable antagonist enamel wear. Moreover, the meta-analysis results agreed that the final restoration's surface texture plays an essential role in the wear process.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Monolithic zirconia restorations have been widely used in dental practice because they eliminate the chipping problems resulting from using veneered restorations. With recent technology development, monolithic zirconia has obtained more esthetic features and a more natural look. However, due to the high strength and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia, wear on the antagonist's teeth was detected. The results showed that this wear amount was statistically acceptable and lower than other ceramics such as feldspathic porcelain and enamel. Furthermore, surface treatment methods must be applied to minimize tooth wear, as polished or glazed surfaces interfere with enamel loss.

Shear bond strength of glass ionomer and resin-based cements to different types of zirconia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a glass ionomer (GI) cement, an 10-methacryloyloxy-decyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-based adhesive resin cement (MDP-based AC), an MDP-based self-adhesive resin cement (MDP-based SAC), an MDP-free self-adhesive resin cement (MDP-free SAC), and a resin-modified GI (RMGI) cement to a 3 mol% yttria-stabilized (3Y-TZP) and a 5 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (5Y-PSZ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty blocks were produced using 3Y-TZP and 5Y-PSZ, assigned to subgroups based on the five cements investigated (n = 10) and luted to cylindrical specimens of the same substrate. Each specimen was loaded in a SBS apparatus to failure. Mean SBS (MPa) values and standard deviations were calculated. Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests (α = .05). Failed specimens were subjected to fractographic analysis.

RESULTS

MDP-based AC and MDP-based SAC cements displayed the highest SBS values with both the substrates; GI cement showed the lowest. RMGI and MDP-free SAC cements performed better with 3Y-TZP than with 5Y-PSZ. Fractographic analysis revealed only adhesive and mixed failures.

CONCLUSIONS

MDP-based AC and MDP-based SAC cements are suitable for both 3Y-TZP and 5Y-PSZ. MDP-free SAC and RMGI cements are adequate choices for 3Y-TZP, but seem less effective with 5Y-PSZ.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

MDP-based SACs appear to be as reliable as MDP-based ACs for both 3Y-TZP and 5Y-PSZ cementation. Specifically, for 5Y-PSZ cementation, resin-based MDP-free SACs do not seem to guarantee predictable results in terms of SBS.

Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of four conventional chemically cured glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, Vidrion R and Vitromolar) commonly used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) immediately after material preparation. Twenty specimens of each glass ionomer cement were fabricated and surface roughness was measured after material setting. The specimens were further examined under scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Two-by-two comparisons showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between all materials, except for Ketac Molar and Vidrion R, which had statically similar results (p>0.05). Regarding their results of surface roughness, the materials can be presented in a crescent order, as follows: Ketac Molar < Vidrion R < Fuji IX < Vitromolar. In conclusion, from the tested glass ionomer cements, Fuji IX, Ketac Molar and Vidrion R presented acceptable surface roughness after setting reaction while Vitromolar showed remarkably higher surface roughness.