Next Article in Journal
One-Step Synthesis of LiCo1-1.5xYxPO4@C Cathode Material for High-Energy Lithium-ion Batteries
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction of Resistance Spot Welding Quality Based on BPNN Optimized by Improved Sparrow Search Algorithm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/ma15207324
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Wear Properties of Conventional and High-Translucent Zirconia-Based Materials

by
Francesco De Angelis
1,*,
Matteo Buonvivere
1,
Edoardo Sorrentino
1,
Giuseppe Daniele Rondoni
2 and
Camillo D’Arcangelo
1
1
Unit of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Science, School of Dentistry, “G. D’Annunzio” University of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy
2
Private Practice, 17100 Savona, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(20), 7324; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207324
Submission received: 3 September 2022 / Revised: 13 October 2022 / Accepted: 18 October 2022 / Published: 20 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the two-body wear resistance of a first generation 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP), a second generation 3Y-TZP, a third generation 4 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (4Y-PSZ), a 5 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (5Y-PSZ), and a type III gold alloy (Aurocast 8), performed using opposing antagonistic cusps made out of the same material. Eight cylindrical specimens were prepared for each material (n = 8) for a total of forty specimens (N = 40). Conical cusps were fabricated for each material. Each cylinder–cusp pair was arranged inside a two-axis chewing simulator over up to 360,000 loading cycles. The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical substance loss (mm) and the volume loss (mm3). The antagonist wear (mm) was recorded before and after the wear test to evaluate the linear difference. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); multiple comparisons were performed according to Tukey’s method. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) among the first generation 3Y-TZP, second generation 3Y-TZP, and 4Y-PSZ wear were found. 5Y-PSZ showed statistically significant higher wear compared to other the zirconias. Aurocast 8 displayed the highest values in terms of vertical wear, antagonist cusp wear, and volumetric loss. Although still not statistically comparable, the wear behavior of the latest 5Y-PSZ was the closest to the widely recognized gold standard represented by the type III gold alloy.

1. Introduction

An enormous selection of dental restorative materials have been launched on the market in an effort to improve biocompatibility [1], minimal invasiveness [2,3], and aesthetics in dentistry. Among the different mechanical features that characterize each material, wear behavior should be carefully evaluated by clinicians in an attempt to provide restorations mimicking the replaced tooth’s hard tissues [4]. Both a decreased wear resistance and an excessive hardness could, in fact, rapidly impair the aesthetic and functional outcomes achieved, especially in the full-mouth rehabilitation of parafunctional patients [5]. Gold-based dental alloys are well known in the literature for their enamel-like wear behavior, which, together with other desirable features, makes them especially suitable for durable posterior restorations [6,7]. However, their unpleasant appearance, paired with the increasingly pressing aesthetic demands of patients [8,9], has progressively reduced their clinical use in favor of all-ceramic materials such as zirconia [10,11].
Known for its exceptional mechanical features, 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP), also called first generation zirconia, covers a wide range of clinical applications, from single crowns to multi-unit fixed dental prostheses and implants [12]. Owing to its inherent low translucency and opacity, however, its use is debatable in aesthetically critical areas [13], where silica-based feldspathic porcelains and glass-ceramics (within their mechanical limitations) still show superior aesthetical results in terms of natural enamel emulation [12]. Aiming at merging zirconia’s mechanical features and silica-based ceramics’ optical properties, over the past few years manufacturers have introduced several modifications to the first generation 3Y-TZP sintering procedure [14] and chemical/crystallographic structure [15], which have led to second generation 3Y-TZP, and third generation 4 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (4Y-PSZ) and 5 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (5Y-PSZ) [12]. Specifically, partially stabilized zirconias have initiated the next stage in monolithic zirconia development; characterized by a higher yttria content and an increased nonbirefringent cubic phase, these novel materials have shown noticeably improved translucency at the price of a decrease in flexural strength and toughness [15] and extended the original range of zirconia applications to include single crowns and multi-unit fixed dental prostheses in aesthetically demanding areas and even minimally invasive adhesive restorations (veneers, inlays/onlays) [12]. Several studies have investigated the bonding [16] and mechanical features of these materials [17], but only a few have addressed the issue of their wear behavior at present [18,19,20]. However, none of them have compared the wear resistance of these new materials with that of traditional zirconias and gold-based alloys. On these bases, the aim of the present article was to investigate and compare the wear behavior of a first generation 3Y-TZP, a second generation 3Y-TZP, a 4Y-PSZ, a 5Y-PSZ, and a type III gold alloy by means of a two-body wear test performed using opposing antagonistic cusps made out of the same restorative material. The null hypothesis was that no significant differences in terms of wear properties could be detected.

2. Materials and Methods

The experimental design of the study was planned considering the type of dental restorative material as the only qualitative factor under investigation, having five independent levels: first generation 3Y-TZP, second generation 3Y-TZP, 4Y-PSZ, 5Y-PSZ, and Aurocast 8.
A complete list of the materials used in the study is presented in Table 1.

2.1. Sample Fabrication Methodology

The sample size of the present experiment was based on similar previous studies [4,21,22,23]. Eight cylindrical specimens with an 8 mm diameter and a 6 mm height were prepared for each material (n = 8), for a total of forty specimens (N = 40). Zirconia cylinders (Katana Zirconia HTML, Katana Zirconia STML, Katana Zirconia UTML, and Zenotec Zr Bridge) were obtained by milling and sintering procedures according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Zenotec Zr Bridge specimens were sintered in a ceramic furnace (Programat S1 1600, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) following the prescribed 10 h schedule (Program 21). All the other zirconia types were sintered in a conventional zirconia-sintering furnace (Noritake KATANA F-1; Kuraray Noritake, Tokyo, Japan) using the recommended 7 h schedule (1550 °C maximum temperature, 2 h hold time). Type III gold alloy specimens (Aurocast 8) were made through the classic lost wax technique. Wax replicas of the cylindrical specimens were produced, attached to wax sprue bases, and placed in a silicone casting ring. After the wax burnout process in a furnace (Magma No. 2300-0500; Renfert GmbH, Hilzingen, Germany), the hot ring was put in an automatic casting machine (ASM 30; Tecno-Gaz S.p.A, Sala Baganza, Italy).

2.2. Fabrication Methods of the Antagonist Model

Conical cusps with a 2 mm diameter round tip were fabricated for each of the materials analyzed. Zirconia cusps were obtained by the CAD/CAM technique from a pre-formed steel cusp scan, while gold alloy cusps were produced through the lost wax casting technique by taking a polyvinylsiloxane impression of the above-mentioned steel cusp to obtain its wax analogue.

2.3. Polishing Procedures

Zirconia cusps and cylindrical specimens were polished with silicon carbide rubbers (Pink Medium Midgets, RA #15; Dedeco International Inc, Long Eddy, NY, USA) and sandpaper cones (L-Red Meister Cones, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Tokyo, Japan). Further polishing was performed using goat-hair brushes (RA Shiny S, Micerium S.p.A., Avegno, Italy) and a dedicated zirconia diamond paste (Pearl Surface Z, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.). Gold alloy cusps cylindrical specimens were polished using silicone polishers (Blue Fine and Pink Extra-Fine Midgets, HP #15, Dedeco International) and felt wheels with a specific diamond paste (Dia Past, NobilMetal S.p.A., Villafranca d’Asti, Italy). All polishing procedures were performed with an electric handpiece at about 15,000 rpm and manual pressure for 60 s.

2.4. Wear Testing

After a 24 h storage at 37 °C, each cylinder-cusp pair (manufactured using the same restorative material for both the cylinder and the cusp) was arranged inside a two-axis chewing simulator (CS-4.2, SD Mechatronik GmbH, Feldkirchen-Westerham, Germany) according to the methodology described by D’Arcangelo et al., acrylic resin (VariDur 200, Buehler, IL, USA) was used to fix the cylinders inside the chambers and the antagonist cusps in the corresponding holders. All cylinder–cusp pairs were then subjected to two-body wear test setting the parameters listed in Table 2. Specimens were subjected to a number of 360.000 cycles (corresponding to approximately 1.5 years of human mastication [24]) and kept submerged in artificial saliva for all the duration of the test.

2.5. Data Analysis

After wear testing, a three-dimensional analytical evaluation of the specimen wear facets was performed by quantitative surface assessment. Three-dimensional meshes of each cylindrical specimen were acquired through a CAD/CAM scanner (inEos X5, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) in STL (standard triangulation language) format, then converted to drawing interchange Format (DXF), and subsequently imported into a computer-aided design software (AutoCAD 2009, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA), taking care to choose a suitable triangular reference plane placed on the flat surface for depth measurement. Cusps were instead measured before and after the wear test to evaluate the detectable linear difference defined as antagonist wear (mm). Volume loss, as well as mean values, and standard deviation for wear depth were calculated using the SPSS Statistics 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) statistical software. Mean values were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA); multiple comparisons were performed according to Tukey’s method.

2.6. SEM Wear Facet Analysis

Following the measurements described above, the specimens were observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (EVO 50 XVP LaB6, Carl Zeiss SMT Ltd., Cambridge, UK) following the metallization process, except for the gold alloy specimens. Surfaces were measured at 500× magnification so that it was possible to evaluate the wear surfaces of the cylindrical specimens examined. The SEM settings were as follows: high vacuum (2107 Torr), current output at 10 pA, accelerating voltage 10 kV, and a working distance of about 10 mm.
The experimental workflow from sample preparation to 3D analytical evaluation of the specimens’ wear facets is summarized in Figure 1.

3. Results

The obtained results are summarized in Table 3.
One-way ANOVA tests revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the groups regarding the parameters investigated. Multiple comparisons according to Tukey’s method showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) among the first generation 3Y-TZP, second generation 3Y-TZP, and 4Y-PSZ wear values; significant differences (p < 0.05) were instead registered between 5Y-PSZ zirconia and all the other zirconia values. The 5Y-PSZ zirconia showed reduced antagonist cusp wear (0.115 ± 0.021 mm) and volumetric loss (0.067 ± 0.029 mm3), but similar vertical wear (0.073 ± 0.023 mm) compared to Aurocast 8, which displayed the highest value in terms of vertical wear (0.082 ± 0.017 mm), volumetric loss (0.131 ± 0.055 mm3), and antagonist cusp wear (0.238 ± 0.078 mm).
The 3D meshes and relative SEM analysis of the representative specimens are depicted in Figure 2. All the zirconia samples (Figure 2A–H) showed relatively flat wear facets clearly distinguishable from the surrounding irregular texture produced by the polishing procedures. Slight parallel grooves in the antagonists sliding direction were evident on the second generation 3Y-TZP (Figure 2D) and on the 4Y-PSZ (Figure 2F) samples. For all the type III gold alloy specimens (Figure 2I,L), SEM observation suggested that the material was pushed towards both sides of the wear tracks rather than wearing and breaking away.

4. Discussion

In the present study, the in vitro wear resistance of different zirconia generations and a gold-based alloy opposing antagonistic cusps made out of the same restorative material was compared in order to simulate the clinical scenario of restored occlusal surfaces occluding in a full-mouth rehabilitation involving both upper and lower arches.
The null hypothesis tested had to be rejected, as significant differences in the wear behavior of the materials under investigation were revealed.
The gold-based alloy showed the highest wear values. As previously demonstrated [22,23], type III gold alloys display wear performances similar to those of human enamel, whose annual occlusal substance loss ranges from 15 µm (premolars) to 29 µm (molars) [25]. When performing prosthetic rehabilitations, clinicians should carefully consider the restorative material’s wear behavior in order to avoid jeopardizing the results of their therapies. On the one hand, in fact, a restorative material with an inadequate wear resistance could lead to occlusal contact loss (thus reducing the patient’s chewing ability and causing masticatory muscle fatigue) and altering of teeth–bone relationships and jaw relationships, eventually inducing functional and esthetic impairments [26,27,28,29,30]. On the other hand, a material with an excessive wear resistance could hinder the essential process of self-functionalization that physiologically every restoration might undergo, which helps protect teeth and prostheses from fractures and might prevent unpredictable occlusal interferences from ending up in gnathological problems. In these terms, due to its enamel-like wear behavior, type III gold-based alloys still might represent the gold standard for the replacement of masticatory surfaces. Nevertheless, on behalf of aesthetics, gold alloy use has progressively decreased over time, in favor of tooth-colored restorative materials [31,32] including monolithic zirconias. However, several in vitro reports have clearly shown the wear resistance of monolithic zirconia to be excessively different (significantly increased) compared to gold alloys or human enamel [21,33,34]; according to these authors, such a behavior should be considered less than ideal, especially with regard to the preservation of the patient’s occlusal balance.
Several zirconias with different chemical/crystallographic structure were evaluated in this study. Apart from 5Y-PSZ, which showed higher mean values for antagonist wear, wear depth, and volume loss, no significant differences were registered among the other zirconias. With a 900–1200 MPa flexural strength and a 6–8 MPa m0.5 fracture toughness [35,36], first generation 3Y-TZP is regarded as one of the most robust restorative ceramics [12]. Due to its alumina content and its crystallographic structure, however, first generation 3Y-TZP exhibits a considerable opacity, which makes matching natural teeth translucency very challenging [12,37]. These aesthetic limitations were gradually reduced by decreasing the amount of alumina from 0.25 to 0.05 wt% [18] (second generation 3Y-TZP) and increasing the yttrium oxide content (third generation 4Y-PSZ and 5Y-PSZ). A higher yttrium content (up to approximately 9.3 wt%/5 mol%) [38], in particular, results in a larger cubic phase, which limits residual porosities and light scattering at the grain boundaries and therefore allows a higher light transmittance [15,39]. At the same time, these chemical/crystallographic changes lowered the flexural strength and toughness of 4Y-PSZ and 5Y-PSZ [18,40] and deprived them of the renowned toughening mechanism by phase transformation typical of 3Y-TZP [15].
On the report of the findings of the present paper, the above-mentioned structural modifications of third generation zirconia (5Y-PSZ) seemed to significantly affect its wear resistance too. This seems in contrast with some previous studies [18,19,20], reporting that the reduction in flexural strength and toughness observed for third generation zirconias (especially 5Y-PSZ) is not necessarily followed by a concomitant decrease in wear resistance. This lack of consistency with previous papers could be imputable to relevant differences among the experimental study designs adopted. Rosentritt et al. [19] performed a pin-on-block wear test for 120,000 cycles. However, such a limited number of cycles might be insufficient to successfully detect any difference among wear-resistant materials such as zirconias and, for this reason, in the present study, the number of cycles was increased up to 360,000. Indeed, Zhang et al. [20] and Kwon et al. [18] increased the testing cycles up to 1,200,000 and 300,000, respectively, but they used a reduced load (20 N) and different antagonists, such as steatite spheres (Zhang et al.) and cone-shaped enamel cusps (Kwon et al.). Following a widely validated in vitro testing protocol (Ivoclar Method) [41], the study design of the present work instead provided a 50 N load and was the only one testing different zirconia generations and using the same material both for the specimen and the antagonistic cusp, thus obtaining useful results for clinicians dealing with restored occlusal surfaces occluding in a full-mouth rehabilitation. Nowadays, several resin composites and aesthetic ceramics exist that have proven to exhibit favorable enamel-like wear behavior [23]. Those materials provide all the clear advantages of an effective adhesive cementation [42], an adequate biocompatibility [43,44], and excellent aesthetic features due to their inherent translucency. However, their relatively limited flexural strength makes them not suitable for clinical situations requiring strong materials, in which zirconia might represent a more reliable choice. With the introduction of third generation zirconias, especially 5Y-PSZ, these mechanical advantages (although downsized) coexist with a remarkably enhanced translucency and aesthetics. The present study also showed a slightly more favorable wear behavior for 5Y-PSZ compared to the other monolithic zirconias. Nevertheless, its wear properties seemed to still be significantly different from a universally recognized gold-standard such as the gold-based alloy [4,21,22,23].
Advancements are therefore still needed in order to further improve 5Y-PSZ wear behavior, possibly without jeopardizing its current favorable aesthetic and mechanical features.
The present paper evaluated the wear features of modern high-translucent zirconia-based materials with all the advantages of an in vitro study following an experimental protocol that was well supported by the literature. The experimental design allowed the standardization of all the test parameters and the only qualitative factor under investigation was the type of dental restorative material. Care should be taken, however, when dealing with the translational process from in vitro results to clinical practice. Two-body wear tests, in fact, do not fully reproduce the complexity of the oral environment in terms of temperature, humidity, and pH features [45,46]. Moreover, both cylindrical specimens and cusp-shaped abraders used for two-body wear tests lack the elasticity provided by anatomical structures, such as periodontal ligament and alveolar bone, supporting the natural teeth under masticatory loads [45,47]. Thus, as a purpose for further research and with the aim of achieving a clinical validation of the present in vitro results, in vivo studies could be planned, designed to evaluate the intraoral wear of restorations made out of different zirconias, by comparing conventional or digital impressions [48] taken at the baseline and after months/years of clinical service [49,50,51].

5. Conclusions

Based on the findings of an in vitro model designed to test the two-body wear resistance of a restorative material opposing a cusp made out of the same material, the following conclusions were drawn:
  • The total vertical wear and total volumetric loss observed on first generation 3Y-TZP, second generation 3Y-TZP, and 4Y-PSZ were comparable;
  • All the tested zirconias showed statistically reduced wear values compared to the type III gold alloy;
  • The wear resistance of 5Y-PSZ was the closest to that of type III gold alloy, although it was still not statistically comparable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.D.A., G.D.R. and C.D.; Data curation, F.D.A. and M.B.; Formal analysis, F.D.A. and C.D.; Investigation, F.D.A., M.B. and E.S.; Methodology, F.D.A. and M.B.; Project administration, F.D.A. and C.D.; Resources, F.D.A., G.D.R. and C.D.; Supervision, F.D.A. and C.D.; Validation, C.D.; Visualization, F.D.A. and M.B.; Writing—original draft, F.D.A., M.B. and E.S.; Writing—review & editing, F.D.A., M.B. and E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Trubiani, O.; Cataldi, A.; De Angelis, F.; D’Arcangelo, C.; Caputi, S. Overexpression of interleukin-6 and -8, cell growth inhibition and morphological changes in 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-treated human dental pulp mesenchymal stem cells. Int. Endod. J. 2012, 45, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. D’Amario, M.; De Angelis, F.; Mancino, M.; Frascaria, M.; Capogreco, M.; D’Arcangelo, C. Canal shaping of different single-file systems in curved root canals. J. Dent. Sci. 2017, 12, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vadini, M.; De Angelis, F.; D’Amario, M.; Marzo, G.; Baldi, M.; D’Arcangelo, C. Conservative restorations of endodontically compromised anterior teeth in paediatric patients: Physical and mechanical considerations. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2012, 13 (Suppl. 3), 263–267. [Google Scholar]
  4. De Angelis, F.; D’Arcangelo, C.; Malíšková, N.; Vanini, L.; Vadini, M. Wear Properties of Different Additive Restorative Materials Used for Onlay/Overlay Posterior Restorations. Oper. Dent. 2020, 45, E156–E166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vadini, M.; Buonvivere, M.; De Angelis, F. Safe clinical technique for increasing the occlusal vertical dimension in case of erosive wear and missing teeth. Clin. Case Rep. 2021, 9, e04747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johnson, R.; Verrett, R.; Haney, S.; Mansueto, M.; Challa, S. Marginal Gap of Milled versus Cast Gold Restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2017, 26, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Christensen, G.J. The most conservative and longest lasting restorative service. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1976, 20, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vadini, M.; D’Amario, M.; Chiavaroli, Z.; De Angelis, F. Protocol for a new concept of no-prep ultrathin ceramic veneers. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2018, 30, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vadini, M.; D’Amario, M.; De Angelis, F.; Falco, A.; D’Arcangelo, C. No-Prep Rehabilitation of Fractured Maxillary Incisors with Partial Veneers. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2016, 28, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Christensen, G.J. Cast gold restorations. Has the esthetic dentistry pendulum swung too far? J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2001, 132, 809–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Henry, D.B. A philosophy for restoring virgin caries. Oper. Dent. 2008, 33, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, Y.; Lawn, B.R. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pekkan, G.; Pekkan, K.; Bayindir, B.; Özcan, M.; Karasu, B. Factors affecting the translucency of monolithic zirconia ceramics: A review from materials science perspective. Dent. Mater. J. 2020, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Tong, H.; Tanaka, C.B.; Kaizer, M.R.; Zhang, Y. Characterization of three commercial Y-TZP ceramics produced for their high-translucency, high-strength and high-surface area. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42 Pt B1, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Zhang, F.; Inokoshi, M.; Batuk, M.; Hadermann, J.; Naert, I.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Vleugels, J. Strength, toughness and aging stability of highly-translucent Y-TZP ceramics for dental restorations. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, e327–e337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. De Angelis, F.; D’Arcangelo, C.; Buonvivere, M.; Rondoni, G.D.; Vadini, M. Shear bond strength of glass ionomer and resin-based cements to different types of zirconia. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2020, 32, 806–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Church, T.D.; Jessup, J.P.; Guillory, V.L.; Vandewalle, K.S. Translucency and strength of high-translucency monolithic zirconium oxide materials. Gen. Dent. 2017, 65, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Kwon, S.J.; Lawson, N.C.; McLaren, E.E.; Nejat, A.H.; Burgess, J.O. Comparison of the mechanical properties of translucent zirconia and lithium disilicate. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rosentritt, M.; Preis, V.; Behr, M.; Strasser, T. Fatigue and wear behaviour of zirconia materials. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 110, 103970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, F.; Spies, B.C.; Vleugels, J.; Reveron, H.; Wesemann, C.; Müller, W.D.; van Meerbeek, B.; Chevalier, J. High-translucent yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics are wear-resistant and antagonist-friendly. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 1776–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vanini, L.; Rondoni, G.D.; Vadini, M.; De Angelis, F. Wear Evaluation of Prosthetic Materials Opposing Themselves. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vanini, L.; Rondoni, G.D.; De Angelis, F. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 115, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vanini, L.; Rondoni, G.D.; Pirani, M.; Vadini, M.; Gattone, M.; De Angelis, F. Wear properties of a novel resin composite compared to human enamel and other restorative materials. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39, 612–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. DeLong, R.; Sakaguchi, R.L.; Douglas, W.H.; Pintado, M.R. The wear of dental amalgam in an artificial mouth: A clinical correlation. Dent. Mater. 1985, 1, 238–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lambrechts, P.; Braem, M.; Vuylsteke-Wauters, M.; Vanherle, G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J. Dent. Res. 1989, 68, 1752–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yip, K.H.; Smales, R.J.; Kaidonis, J.A. Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: Clinical implications. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17, 350–356. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dahl, B.L.; Oilo, G. In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1994, 25, 561–565. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ramp, M.H.; Suzuki, S.; Cox, C.F.; Lacefield, W.R.; Koth, D.L. Evaluation of wear: Enamel opposing three ceramic materials and a gold alloy. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1997, 77, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zeng, J.; Sato, Y.; Ohkubo, C.; Hosoi, T. In vitro wear resistance of three types of composite resin denture teeth. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2005, 94, 453–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ogle, R.E.; Davis, E.L. Clinical wear study of three commercially available artificial tooth materials: Thirty-six month results. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1998, 79, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Angelis, F.; Minnoni, A.; Vitalone, L.M.; Carluccio, F.; Vadini, M.; Paolantonio, M.; D’Arcangelo, C. Bond strength evaluation of three self-adhesive luting systems used for cementing composite and porcelain. Oper. Dent. 2011, 36, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. D’Arcangelo, C.; De Angelis, F.; Vadini, M.; Carluccio, F.; Vitalone, L.M.; D’Amario, M. Influence of curing time, overlay material and thickness on three light-curing composites used for luting indirect composite restorations. J Adhes. Dent. 2012, 14, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Nakashima, J.; Taira, Y.; Sawase, T. In vitro wear of four ceramic materials and human enamel on enamel antagonist. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 124, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kwon, M.S.; Oh, S.Y.; Cho, S.A. Two-body wear comparison of zirconia crown, gold crown, and enamel against zirconia. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2015, 47, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guazzato, M.; Albakry, M.; Ringer, S.P.; Swain, M.V. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent. Mater. 2004, 20, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Denry, I.; Kelly, J.R. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, H.; Li, Z.; Kim, B.-N.; Morita, K.; Yoshida, H.; Hiraga, K.; Sakka, Y. Effect of Alumina Dopant on Transparency of Tetragonal Zirconia. J. Nanomater. 2012, 2012, 269064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Stawarczyk, B.; Keul, C.; Eichberger, M.; Figge, D.; Edelhoff, D.; Lümkemann, N. Three generations of zirconia: From veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence Int. 2017, 48, 369–380. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Pereira, G.K.R.; Guilardi, L.F.; Dapieve, K.S.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Rippe, M.P.; Valandro, L.F. Mechanical reliability, fatigue strength and survival analysis of new polycrystalline translucent zirconia ceramics for monolithic restorations. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2018, 85, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Heintze, S.D.; Zappini, G.; Rousson, V. Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators—Results of a round robin test. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vanini, L.; Casinelli, M.; Frascaria, M.; De Angelis, F.; Vadini, M.; D’Amario, M. Adhesive Cementation of Indirect Composite Inlays and Onlays: A Literature Review. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2015, 36, 570–577; quiz 8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. De Angelis, F.; Mandatori, D.; Schiavone, V.; Melito, F.P.; Valentinuzzi, S.; Vadini, M.; Di Tomo, P.; Vanini, L.; Pelusi, L.; Pipino, C.; et al. Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of composite resins on cultured human gingival fibroblasts. Materials 2021, 14, 5225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Trubiani, O.; Caputi, S.; Di Iorio, D.; D’Amario, M.; Paludi, M.; Giancola, R.; di Maio, F.d.; de Angelis, F.; D’Arcangelo, C. The cytotoxic effects of resin-based sealers on dental pulp stem cells. Int. Endod. J. 2010, 43, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Soriano-Valero, S.; Román-Rodriguez, J.L.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Bellot-Arcís, C.; Fons-Font, A.; Fernández-Estevan, L. Systematic review of chewing simulators: Reality and reproducibility of in vitro studies. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2020, 12, e1189–e1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Condon, J.R.; Ferracane, J.L. Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent. Mater. 1996, 12, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aksel, H.; Askerbeyli-Örs, S.; Deniz-Sungur, D. Vertical root fracture resistance of simulated immature permanent teeth filled with MTA using different vehicles. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2017, 9, e178–e181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Re, D.; De Angelis, F.; Augusti, G.; Augusti, D.; Caputi, S.; D’Amario, M.; D’Arcangelo, C. Mechanical Properties of Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Comparison. Int. J. Dent. 2015, 2015, 428286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. 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, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Esquivel-Upshaw, J.F.; Young, H.; Jones, J.; Yang, M.; Anusavice, K.J. In vivo wear of enamel by a lithia disilicate-based core ceramic used for posterior fixed partial dentures: First-year results. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2006, 19, 391–396. [Google Scholar]
  51. Koletsi, D.; Iliadi, A.; Eliades, T.; Eliades, G. In Vitro Simulation and In Vivo Assessment of Tooth Wear: A Meta-Analysis of In Vitro and Clinical Research. Materials 2019, 12, 3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 15 07324 g001 550
Figure 1. Experimental workflow from sample preparation to 3D analytical evaluation of the specimens’ wear facets.
Figure 1. Experimental workflow from sample preparation to 3D analytical evaluation of the specimens’ wear facets.
Materials 15 07324 g001
Materials 15 07324 g002 550
Figure 2. Three-dimensional meshes and scanning electron microphotographs (original magnification 500×) of representative first generation 3Y-TZP (A,B), second generation 3Y-TZP (C,D), 4Y-PSZ (E,F), 5Y-PSZ (G,H), and type III gold alloy specimens (I,J).
Figure 2. Three-dimensional meshes and scanning electron microphotographs (original magnification 500×) of representative first generation 3Y-TZP (A,B), second generation 3Y-TZP (C,D), 4Y-PSZ (E,F), 5Y-PSZ (G,H), and type III gold alloy specimens (I,J).
Materials 15 07324 g002
Table
Table 1. Tested materials technical data provided by manufacturers.
Table 1. Tested materials technical data provided by manufacturers.
MaterialLot. No.ShadeManufacturerTechnical Data
Zirconia Wieland Zenotec Zr BridgeS27409WhiteWieland Dental + Technik GmbH & Co. KG, Munich, Germany3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal
Katana Zirconia HTMLECVXDA1Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal
Katana Zirconia STMLEDETQA3Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan4 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia
Katana Zirconia UTMLDQDUAD4Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan5 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia
Aurocast815L0255-Nobil-Metal S.p.A., Villafranca d’Asti, ItalyType 3 dental alloy with high gold content.
Composition (W/W): Au = 85.4%, Ag = 9.0%, Cu = 5.0%,
Pd = 1.0%, Ir = 1.0%
Table
Table 2. Chewing simulator setting parameters.
Table 2. Chewing simulator setting parameters.
Number of Cycles360.000
Force49 N
Height3 mm
Lateral movement−0.7 mm
Lowering speed60 mm/s
Lifting speed60 mm/s
Advanced speed40 mm/s
Return speed40 mm/s
Frequency1.6 Hz
Table
Table 3. Mean values (and standard deviations, SD) for antagonist wear, sample vertical wear, and sample volume loss. Same superscripted letters indicate no statistically significant differences.
Table 3. Mean values (and standard deviations, SD) for antagonist wear, sample vertical wear, and sample volume loss. Same superscripted letters indicate no statistically significant differences.
MaterialAntagonist Wear (mm)Sample Vertical Wear (mm)Sample Volume Loss (mm3)
UTML Zirconia Katana (Ultra-Translucent)0.115 b0.073 a0.067 b
(0.021)(0.023)(0.029)
HTML Zirconia Katana (High-Translucent)0.034 c0.012 b0.004 c
(0.027)(0.007)(0.003)
STML Zirconia Katana (Super-Translucent)0.027 c0.018 b0.021 c
(0.016)(0.004)(0.013)
WB Zirconia (Conventional)0.019 c0.015 b0.011 c
(0.008)(0.006)(0.007)
Aurocast 80.238 a0.082 a0.131 a
(0.078)(0.017)(0.055)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De Angelis, F.; Buonvivere, M.; Sorrentino, E.; Rondoni, G.D.; D’Arcangelo, C. Wear Properties of Conventional and High-Translucent Zirconia-Based Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 7324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207324

AMA Style

De Angelis F, Buonvivere M, Sorrentino E, Rondoni GD, D’Arcangelo C. Wear Properties of Conventional and High-Translucent Zirconia-Based Materials. Materials. 2022; 15(20):7324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207324

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Angelis, Francesco, Matteo Buonvivere, Edoardo Sorrentino, Giuseppe Daniele Rondoni, and Camillo D’Arcangelo. 2022. "Wear Properties of Conventional and High-Translucent Zirconia-Based Materials" Materials 15, no. 20: 7324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207324

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop