Influence of zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth- or implant-supported crowns on wear of antagonistic and adjacent teeth

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of crown material (lithium-disilicate, 3Y-TZP zirconia) and abutment type (rigid implant, resin tooth with artificial periodontium) on wear performance of their antagonist teeth and adjacent teeth.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mandibular left first molar (#36) with adjacent human teeth (mandibular left second premolar: #35, mandibular left second molar: #37) and antagonistic human teeth (maxillary left second premolar: #25, maxillary left first molar: #26, maxillary left second molar: #27) was prepared simulating a section of the jaw. Samples were made with extracted human molars (Reference), crowned implants (Implant), or crowned resin tooth analogues (Tooth). Crowns (tooth #36; n = 16/material) were milled from lithium-disilicate (Li, IPS e.max CAD) or 3Y-TZP zirconia (Zr, IPS e.max ZirCAD, both Ivoclar Vivadent). Thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) in the chewing simulator were applied simulating 15 years of clinical service. Wear traces were analyzed (frequency [n], depth [µm]) and evaluated using scanning electron pictures. Wear results were compared by one-way-ANOVA and post-hoc-Bonferroni (α = 0.05).RESULTS: After TCML, no visible wear traces were found on Zr. Li showed more wear traces (n = 30–31) than the reference (n = 21). Antagonistic teeth #26 showed more wear traces in contact to both ceramics (n = 27–29) than to the reference (n = 21). Strong wear traces (> 350 µm) on antagonists and their adjacent teeth were found only in crowned groups. Abutment type influenced number and depth of wear facets on the antagonistic and adjacent teeth.CONCLUSION: The clinically relevant model with human antagonistic and adjacent teeth allowed for a limited comparison of the wear situation. The total number of wear traces and strong wear on crowns, antagonistic and adjacent teeth were influenced by crown material.

In vitro performance and fracture resistance of novel CAD/CAM ceramic molar crowns loaded on implants and human teeth

PURPOSE: To investigate the fatigue and fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic molar crowns on dental implants and human teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Molar crowns (n=48; n=8/group) were fabricated of a lithium-disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (N). Surfaces were polished (P) or glazed (G). Crowns were tested on human teeth (T) and implant-abutment analogues (I) simulating a chairside (C, crown bonded to abutment) or labside (L, screw channel) procedure for implant groups. Polished/glazed lithium disilicate (E) crowns (n=16) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TC: 3000×5℃/3000×55℃; ML: 1.2×106 cycles, 50 N) with antagonistic human molars (groups T) and steatite spheres (groups I) was performed under a chewing simulator. TCML crowns were then analyzed for failures (optical microscopy, SEM) and fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorow-Smirnov, one-way-ANOVA, post-hoc Bonferroni, α=.05). RESULTS: All crowns survived TCML and showed small traces of wear. In human teeth groups, fracture forces of N crowns varied between 1214±293 N (NPT) and 1324±498 N (NGT), differing significantly (P≤.003) from the polished reference EPT (2044±302 N). Fracture forces in implant groups varied between 934±154 N (NGI_L) and 1782±153 N (NPI_C), providing higher values for the respective chairside crowns. Differences between polishing and glazing were not significant (P≥.066) between crowns of identical materials and abutment support. CONCLUSION: Fracture resistance was influenced by the ceramic material, and partly by the tooth or implant situation and the clinical procedure (chairside/labside). Type of surface finish (polishing/glazing) had no significant influence. Clinical survival of the new glass ceramic may be comparable to lithium disilicate.