Published February 28, 2025
| Version v1
Journal article
Open
Comparative Analysis of Natural Tooth Wear against Various Prosthetic Crown Materials
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Contributors
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Natural tooth wear is an inevitable physiological process that occurs due to mastication, parafunctional habits, and aging. However, the introduction of prosthetic crowns in dental rehabilitation has led to concerns regarding the wear of opposing natural teeth. This review explores the comparative analysis of natural tooth wear caused by different prosthetic crown materials, emphasizing recent advancements, advantages, and future directions in this domain. The discussion highlights how the hardness, surface roughness, and material composition of crown materials impact tooth wear. Furthermore, advancements in materials science, such as the development of monolithic ceramics and hybrid materials, have significantly improved the biocompatibility and wear resistance of dental prosthetics. A future perspective focuses on the need for clinical trials and advanced in vitro testing to optimize material properties for minimal wear of natural teeth while maintaining functional efficiency
Files
ZEBA.pdf
Files
(641.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:f2bed3e40703674f54b4d03aa98d0445
|
641.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55(3):559–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011 2. Wiley MG. Effects of porcelain on occluding surfaces of restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61(2):133–137. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89) 90360-0 3. Rupawala A, Musani SI, Madanshetty P, et al. A study on the wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia and the subsequent phase transformation compared to two other ceramic systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(1):8–14. DOI: 10.4103/ 0972-4052.194940 4. Mahalick JA, Knap FJ, Weiter EJ. Occusal wear in prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 1971;82(1):154–159. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0018 5. Lee A, Swain M, He L, et al. Wear behavior of human enamel against lithium disilicate glass ceramic and type III gold. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(6):1399–1405. DOI: 10.1016/ j.prosdent. 2014.08.002 6. Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res 1991;70 (3): 221–225. DOI: 10.1177/ 00220345910700031301 7. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, et al. Three generations of zirconia: from veneered to monolithic. Part II. Quintessence Int 2017; 48(6):441–450. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38157 8. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014;30(5):564–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.019 9. Fasbinder DJ. Material matters: a review of chairside CAD-CAM restorative materials. J Cosmet Dent 2018;34(3):64–74. 10. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013;29(4):419–426. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.01.002 11. Harsono M, Simon JF, Stein JM, et al. Evolution of chairside CAD/CAM dentistry. Tex Dent J 2013;130(3):238–244. PMID: 23734548. 12. Elsayed A, Yazigi C, Kern M, et al. Mechanical behavior of nano-hybrid composite in comparison to lithium disilicate as posterior cement-retained implant-supported crowns restoring different abutments. Dent Mater 2021;37(8):e435–e442. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.03.015 13. Marchesi G, Piloni AC, Nicolin V, et al. Chairside CAD/CAM materials: current trends of clinical uses. Biology (Basel) 2021;10(11):1170. DOI: 10.3390/ biology10111170 14. Oh WS, DeLong R, Anusavice KJ. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):451–459. DOI: 10.1067/ mpr.2002.123851 15. Smith BG, Bartlett DW, Robb ND, et al. The prevalence, etiology and management of tooth wear in the United Kingdom. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(4):367–372. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97) 70043-x 16. Bajraktarova-Valjakova E, Korunoska-Stevkovska V, Kapusevska B, et al. Contemporary dental ceramic materials, a review: chemical composition, physical and mechanical properties, indications for use. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(9):1742–1755. DOI: 10.3889/ oamjms. 2018. 378 17. Kunzelmann KH, Jelen B, Mehl A, et al. Wear evaluation of MZ100 compared to ceramic CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2001;4(3):171–184. PMID: 11862884. 18. Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO. Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 1992;8(5):305–309. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(92) 90105-l 19. Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO. Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater 2016;32(11):e275–e283. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222 20. Kamel MA, Hasan MR, Hashem RM. Assessment of wear of three CAD/CAM ceramics against natural tooth structure in a chewing simulator (in vitro study). Egypt Dent J 2019;65(1):403–416. 21. Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, et al. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(2):318.e1–318.e8. DOI: 10.1016/ j. prosdent. 2018.05.011 22. Xu Z, Yu P, Arola DD, et al. A comparative study on the wear behavior of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) material and tooth enamel. Dent Mater 2017;33(12):1351–1361. DOI: 10.1016/ j.dental.2017.08.190 23. Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, et al. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;20:113–125. DOI: 10. 1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003 24. Chun KJ, Choi HH, Lee JY. Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth. J Dent Biomech 2014;5(1): 1758736014520809. DOI: 10.1177/ 1758736014520809 25. Duarte S, Sartori N, Phark JH. Ceramic-reinforced polymers: CAD/CAM hybrid restorative materials. Curr Oral Health Rep 2016;3(3):198–202. DOI: 10.1007/s40496-016-0102-2