J Adv Prosthodont.  2024 Feb;16(1):12-24. 10.4047/jap.2024.16.1.12.

3D quantitative analysis and SEM qualitative analysis of natural antagonist enamel opposing CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns versus enamel opposing natural enamel

• Woraganjanaboon P
• Anunmana C

• KMID: 2553515
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2024.16.1.12

Abstract

PURPOSE
. This study aimed to evaluate the maximum vertical wear, volume wear, and surface characteristic of antagonist enamel, opposing monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
. The study comprised 24 participants (n = 12), who were randomly allocated to receive either a 5 mol% Y-TZP or a lithium disilicate crown in positions which would oppose the natural first molar tooth. The contralateral first molar along with its antagonist was considered as the enamel opposing natural enamel control. Data collection was performed using an intraoral scanner and polyvinylsiloxane impression. The means of the maximum vertical loss and the volume loss at the occlusal contact areas of the crowns and the various natural antagonists were measured by 3D comparison software. A scanning electron microscope was subsequently used to assess the wear characteristics.
RESULTS
. The one-year results from 22 participants (n = 11) indicated no significant differences when comparing the zirconia crown’s antagonist enamel (40.28 ± 9.11 μm, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm³ ) and the natural enamel wear (38.91 ± 7.09 μm, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm³ ) (P > .05). Also, there is no significant differences between lithium disilicate crown’s antagonist enamel (47.81 ± 9.41 μm, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm³ ) and the natural enamel wear (39.11 ± 7.90 μm, 0.04 ± 0.02 mm³ ) (P > .05).
CONCLUSION
. While some studies suggested that monolithic zirconia caused less wear on opposing enamel than lithium disilicate, this study found similar wear levels to enamel for both materials compared to natural teeth.

Keyword

Wear; Enamel; Zirconia; Lithium disilicate; In vivo