IADR Abstract Archives
Wear of Ceramic Materials Opposing 5Y Zirconia
Objectives: To measure wear of ceramic restorative materials opposing conventionally and fast sintered translucent 5Y zirconia
Methods: 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic, 3M) was milled into conical-shaped cusps and sintered with conventional and fast sintering cycles. Flat 4mm thick specimens were fabricated out of 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic), lithium disilicate (e.max CAD LT, Ivoclar Vivadent), and lithium silicate (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona), sintered/crystalized, and polished to 2000 grit SiC paper. The specimens were load cycled in the UAB wear testing device for 400,000 cycles (60Hz/20N/33% glycerine lubricant). Volumetric wear was determined of all flat specimens using a non-contact profilometer. Data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests.
Results: The mean ±SD volumetric wear (mm3) is presented in table. There were significant differences between the wear of ceramic materials (p<.01), however, there was no difference between the type of antagonist used (p=.10) or their interaction (p=.50).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic) fast and conventionally sintered, produced no difference in wear caused to opposing ceramics. Celtra Duo underwent more wear than e.max CAD when opposed by zirconia. Hence clinical significance is that placement of opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate or lithium silicate restorations may introduce more wear on the latter.
Methods: 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic, 3M) was milled into conical-shaped cusps and sintered with conventional and fast sintering cycles. Flat 4mm thick specimens were fabricated out of 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic), lithium disilicate (e.max CAD LT, Ivoclar Vivadent), and lithium silicate (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona), sintered/crystalized, and polished to 2000 grit SiC paper. The specimens were load cycled in the UAB wear testing device for 400,000 cycles (60Hz/20N/33% glycerine lubricant). Volumetric wear was determined of all flat specimens using a non-contact profilometer. Data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests.
Results: The mean ±SD volumetric wear (mm3) is presented in table. There were significant differences between the wear of ceramic materials (p<.01), however, there was no difference between the type of antagonist used (p=.10) or their interaction (p=.50).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, 5Y zirconia (Lava Esthetic) fast and conventionally sintered, produced no difference in wear caused to opposing ceramics. Celtra Duo underwent more wear than e.max CAD when opposed by zirconia. Hence clinical significance is that placement of opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate or lithium silicate restorations may introduce more wear on the latter.