J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2017 Dec;33(4):252-259. 10.14368/jdras.2017.33.4.252.

Clinical study on the comparison of gold and zirconia wear in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis

• Kim JH
• Yang SW
• Oh N

• KMID: 2405537
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2017.33.4.252

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the wear of a prosthesis for 6 months after restoration with implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis made of either zirconia or gold.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted on patients requiring implant-supported fixed dental prostheses on first or second molar from January, 2015 to January, 2016. A total of 47 prostheses and antagonists were examined. Occlusal surface was recorded by impression of each prosthesis and antagonist 1 week and 6 months after prosthesis delivery. The digital files were created by impression scan. Occlusal shapes of 1 week and 6 months were compared and wear of prostheses and antagonists was analyzed. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyzed the result data underwent normality test using SPSS (Version 23.0, IBM Corporation)
RESULTS
Mann-Whitney test revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the median amount of mean vertical wear for 6 months in zirconia (50.84 μm) and gold (42.84 μm) prostheses (P > 0.05). When the opposing teeth were natural, the median amount of mean vertical wear of zirconia and gold prostheses was 47.72 μm and 41.97 μm, respectively, and the median amount of mean vertical wear of enamel was 47.26 μm and 44.59 μm, respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Despite the short study period and the small number of experimental groups, zirconia and gold showed no significant difference in wear during the first 6 months. Opposing natural enamel also showed no significant difference in the wear.

Keyword

implant prosthesis; wear; zirconia; occlusal wear; prosthetic material

MeSH Terms

Clinical Study*
Dental Enamel
Dental Prosthesis
Humans
Molar
Prostheses and Implants*
Tooth
Tooth Attrition

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Deviation analysis procedure. (A) Scanned 3-dimensional images of target tooth at baseline (1 week), (B) Scanned 3-dimensional images of target tooth after 6 months, (C) Superimposed image of target tooth from 1 week and 6 months by Rapidform algorithm, (D) Extraction of target tooth.

• 

  Fig. 2 Deviation analysis, occlusal view of result shows maximum and mean vertical difference

Reference

References

1. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999; 20:1–25. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00010-6.

2. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconiabased dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:44956. PMID: 15081551.

3. Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann M. In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:449–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.024. PMID: 22196898.

4. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH, Ahn JS, Ryu JJ. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent. 2012; 40:979–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004. PMID: 22892464.

5. Mitov G, Heintze SD, Walz S, Woll K, Muecklich F, Pospiech P. Wear behavior of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different finishing procedures. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:909–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.010. PMID: 22608163.

6. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:433–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016. PMID: 17720238.

7. Mahalick JA, Knap FJ, Weiter EJ. Occlusal wear in prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 1971; 82:154–9. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0018. PMID: 4921710.

8. Sulong MZ, Aziz RA. Wear of materials used in dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63:342–9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90209-U.

9. Hacker CH, Wagner WC, Razzoog ME. An in vitro investigation of the wear of enamel on porcelain and gold in saliva. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75:14–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90412-6.

10. al-Hiyasat AS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Smith GM, Gilmour WH. Investigation of human enamel wear against four dental ceramics and gold. J Dent. 1998; 26:487–95. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00041-9.

11. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:22–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0.

12. Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, Shah N. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:358–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001. PMID: 25985742.

13. Kwon MS, Oh SY, Cho SA. Two-body wear comparison of zirconia crown, gold crown, and enamel against zirconia. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015; 47:21–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.11.029. PMID: 25837341.