Degree of Wear of Human Enamel Caused by Three Different Types of Crown and Bridge Materials-A Comparative Evaluation

Chhaniyara Manisha Patel¹, Nikita², BY Sai Kiran³, Palak Pandya⁴, Radhika D⁵ and Santosh Kumar Muradi⁶

¹Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Private Dental Practitioner, Hyderabad, India
²Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Private Practitioner, Hyderabad, India
³Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Assistant Professor Sri Balaji Dental College
⁴Senior Lecturer - Karnavati school of dentistry Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge
⁵Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge Was a Private Practitioner in India
⁶Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Sr. Lecturer at Meghna Institute of Dental Sciences Mallaram Nizamabad Telangana, India

*Corresponding Author: Chhaniyara Manisha Patel, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Private Dental Practitioner, Hyderabad, India.

Received: November 12, 2023; Published: December 11, 2023

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the degree of wear of human enamel caused by metal ceramic, lithium disilicate glass ceramic and polyether ether ketone (PEEK).

Materials and Methods: Thirty test specimens (antagonists), 10 each of metal ceramic, lithium disilicate glass ceramic and PEEK were fabricated in the form of discs of 20mm diameter and 3mm thickness. Enamel specimens were prepared from 30 extracted human permanent premolars. Enamel specimens were abraded against each type of antagonists on a pin on disk wear tester under a constant load of 5kg (49N) at 30rpm for 4800cycles.

The mean loss of height of all the enamel specimens were measured at baseline and after 4800 cycles of wear with a profilometer. All the data was statistically analysed. The comparison between three groups was done by one-way ANOVO test for continuous data and followed by post-hoc multiple comparison test. All p-values less thsn 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The wear of both enamel specimens and antagonists was evaluated quantitatively with scanning electron microscopic images.

Results: Significant differences were found in loss of height among the three groups. The mean loss of height was found to be 1.177mm and standard deviation of 0.471 for metal ceramic group. The mean loss of height was found to be 0.927mm and standard deviation of 0.326 for lithium disilicate group. The mean loss of height was found to be 0.131mm and standard deviation of 0.074 for PEEK group. Statistically.

significant differences were found when the enamel wear caused by PEEK was compared with metal ceramic and lithium disilicate glass ceramic. No significant difference was found when the enamel wear caused by metal ceramic was compared with lithium disilicate glass ceramic.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, PEEK resulted in less wear of enamel when compared to metal ceramic and lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Metal ceramic and lithium disilicate increased the enamel surface roughness after wear testing.

Keywords:Human Enamel; Crown; Bridge; Evaluation

References

1. Wiley MG. “Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 61 (1989): 133‑137.
2. Hmaidouch R and Weigl P. “Tooth wear against ceramic crowns in posterior region: a systematic literature review”. International Journal of Oral Science 4 (2013): 183-190.
3. Morozova Y., et al. “Methods of Wear Measuring in Dentistry”. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 6 (2016): 63-68.
4. Mulay G., et al. “Evaluation of enamel wear by different ceramic surfaces”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2 (2015): 111-118.
5. Guo J., et al. “Investigation of the time-dependent wear behaviour of veneering ceramic in porcelain fused to metal crowns during chewing simulations”. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 40 (2014): 23-32.
6. Wiley MG., et al. “The vertical dimensional change resulting from polishing or glazing porcelain”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 62 (1989): 32-34.
7. Lee A., et al. “Tooth wear and wear investigations in dentistry”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 3 (2011): 217-225.
8. Hickel R., et al. “Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials”. Clinical Oral Investigations 11 (2007): 5-33.
9. DeLong R and Douglas WH. “Development of an artificial oral environment for the testing of dental restoratives: bi-axial force and movement control”. Journal of Dental Research 62 (1983): 32-36.
10. Phillips RW. “Skinners Science of Dental Materials”. 8^th Philadelphia: W.B Saunders Co., Harcourt Brace and Co (1982): 18.
11. Fischer TE., et al. “Genesis and role of wear debris in sliding wear of ceramics”. Wear 245 (2000): 53-60.
12. Preis V., et al. “Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains”. Dental Materials 27 (2011): 796‑804.
13. Elmaria A., et al. “An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 96 (2006): 345‑353.
14. Preis V., et al. “Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains”. Dental Materials 27 (2011): 796‑804.
15. Wang L., et al. “Friction and wear behaviors of dental ceramics against natural tooth enamel”. Journal of the European Ceramic Society 32 (2012): 2599‑606.
16. Janyavula S., et al. “The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 109 (2013): 22‑29.
17. Amer R., et al. “Effect of simulated mastication on the surface roughness of three ceramic systems”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 114 (2015): 260-265.
18. Mulay G., et al. “An evaluation of wear of human enamel opposed by ceramics of different surface finishes”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 15 (2015): 111‑118.
19. Mundhe K., et al. “Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 3 (2015): 358-363.
20. Heintze SD., et al. “Wear of ceramic and antagonist-A systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro”. Dental Materials 24 (2008): 433-449.
21. Rosentritt M., et al. “Influence of the fabrication process on the in vitro performance of fixed dental prostheses with Zirconia substructures”. Clinical Oral Investigations 15 (2011): 1007-1012.
22. Albakry M., et al. “Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all ceramic dental materials”. Journal of Dentistry 104 (2003): 105-113.
23. Aboushelib MN., et al. “Bridging the gap between clinical failure and laboratory fracture strength tests using a fractographic approach”. Dental Materials 31 (2009): 181-188.
24. Kistler F., et al. “PEEK high performance plastics in the implant - plastic Work flow”. Journal of Oral Implantology 17 (2013): 42.
25. Heimer S., et al. “Discoloration of PMMA, composite, and PEEK”. Clinical Oral Investigations 1 (2017): 1-10.
26. Etman MK., et al. “Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 21 (2008): 245-252.
27. Silva NR., et al. “Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate restorations in vitro and in vivo”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 142 (2011): 4S-9S.
28. Rupawala A., et al. “A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 17 (2017): 8-14.
29. Sabrah AH., et al. “Full‑contour Y‑TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on synthetic hydroxyapatite wear”. Dental Materials 29 (2013): 666‑673.
30. Mehta SB., et al. “Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: Part 1. Assessment, treatment planning and strategies for the prevention and the passive management of tooth wear”. British Dental Journal 212 (2012): 17-27.
31. Ren L and Zhang Y. “Sliding contact fracture of dental ceramics: principles and validation”. Acta Biomater 10 (2014): 3243-3253.
32. Zok F and Miserez A. “Property maps for abrasion resistance of materials”. Acta Materialia 55 (2007): 6365-6371.
33. Hahnel S., et al. “Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials”. Clinical Oral Implants Research (2014): 1-5.
34. Skirbutis G., et al. “A review of PEEK properties and its use in prosthodontics”. Stomatologija 1 (2017): 19-23.
35. Sripetchdanond J and Leevailoj C. “Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic and composite resin”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 112 (2014): 1141-1150.
36. O’Brien WJ. “Dental materials and their selection”. 4^th edition Chicago: Quintessence (2008): 160-162.
37. Eichhold WA and Brown DT. “Wear rates of various artificial tooth materials: a literature review”. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 17 (1996): 1074-1078.

Citation

Citation: Chhaniyara Manisha Patel., et al. “Degree of Wear of Human Enamel Caused by Three Different Types of Crown and Bridge Materials-A Comparative Evaluation".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 8.1 (2024): 19-26.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Chhaniyara Manisha Patel., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.