Methods: Five sample specimens of amalgam (A; Tytin, Kerr), composite (C; Estelite Sigma Quick, Tokuyama), zirconia (Z; Everest, Kavo), lithium-disilicate ceramic (LD; IPS e.max, Ivoclar Vivadent), and enamel (E; from buccal cusps of premolars), were individually embedded in acrylic resin molds and then polished through a standardized protocol until level surfaces were achieved. Each sample underwent 10,000 and 220,000 cycles of wear, under 5 kg-weighted (49 N of chewing force) zirconia antagonists (Prettau Zirconia, Zirkonzahn), with an SD Mechatronik CS-4.2 economy-line chewing simulator. Light-body PVS impressions were taken of each sample’s wear facet, and the volume and height of each impression was measured with a Zygo NewView 6K series profilometer and calculated with MetroPro software. ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s test was used to compare heights and volumes between samples (p=0.01).
Results: After 10,000 wear cycles, from greatest to least, the order of height-loss was: C (127.41µm)a, LD (83.65µm)b, E (46.46µm)c, A (19.82µm)d, Z (7.71µm)d, and the order of volume-loss was: C (1.44x108µm3)a, LD (9.11x107µm3)b, E (2.3x107µm3)c, A (5.07x106µm3)c, Z (1.90x106µm3)c.
After 220,000 wear cycles, from greatest to least, the order of height-loss was: C (672.78µm)a, LD (514.31µm)b, A (157.32µm)c, E (130.05µm)c, Z (39.43µm)c, and the order of volume-loss was: C (2.22x109µm3)a, LD (1.45x109µm3)b, A (1.87x108µm3)c, E (1.35x108µm3)c, Z (4.52x107µm3)c. Different letters in superscript following values indicate statistical significance.
Conclusion: Zirconia caused significantly more abrasive wear to composite and lithium-disilicate ceramic than to enamel, amalgam, and zirconia.