ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Fixed restorations and dental enamel have different structures that produce different wear on opposing teeth, resulting in clinical problems. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the type of restoration that causes less wear on naturally opposing teeth to make recommendations. The objective of this study was to systematically analyze the evidence from observational studies and clinical trials on enamel wear in different ceramic restorations. STUDY SELECTION: The designs of the included studies were randomized clinical trials (RTCs), non-randomized clinical trials (non-RTCs), and observational studies (OS). The studies must answer the research question, be available in full text, be written in English or Spanish, and have had at least six months of follow-up. Protocol number: CRD42023397759. RESULTS: After screening 499 records, 20 RTCs were subjected to data extraction, 10 were excluded, 10 were included in the systematic review, and only 5 were included in the network meta-analysis. The risk of bias assessment reported moderate to high risk of bias, quality, and certainty of evidence was evaluated and rated as moderate. Network meta-analysis showed higher enamel wear was observed in natural dental enamel against metal-ceramic antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Enamel wear occurs in all teeth, even when the antagonist is a natural tooth. The wear is larger on surfaces with the ceramic crown antagonists studied (metal-ceramic, glazed zirconia, and polished zirconia). It is necessary to conduct additional clinical trials with larger follow-up periods and sample sizes.
ABSTRACT
The surface roughness, morphology and shear bond strength (SBS) of dental zirconia using three different surface treatment techniques were evaluated. Three groups of sintered zirconia blocks were treated as follow, 1) Airborne-particle abrasion (APA) group (G1-APA), 50-µm Al2O3; 2) APA and 9% hydrofluoric acid etching (G2-HF); 3) APA and Sodium Hydroxide (G3-NaOH). The specimens were evaluated for roughness [atomic force microscope (AFM)], morphology [Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)] and for SBS in the universal testing machine. The AFM revealed changes in the roughness after the surface treatments, however there was not Ra difference between groups, SEM analysis revealed changes in surface morphology for all surface treated specimens. For SBS, significant difference was found between G1-APA=8.4±2.7 MPa and G2-HF=3.3±0.6 MPa (p<0.05) and G2-HF and G3-NaOH=9.0±3.0 MPa (p<0.05). The main fracture mode was mixed failure (63%) for G1-APA and G3-NaOH groups. G2-HF showed 100% adhesive failure. SBS was improved with NaOH, however application of HF significantly decreased SBS.
