Wear performance of self-glazed zirconia crowns with different amount of occlusal adjustment after 6 months of clinical use
Source abstract
Abstract
The amount of enamel wear on the antagonist occlusal surfaces caused by self-glazed zirconia crowns was compared with that caused by contralateral natural teeth. Thirteen self-glazed zirconia crowns were placed in situ. The impressions of self-glazed zirconia crowns, their antagonists and the control teeth were taken and scanned at baseline and 6-month follow-up. The patients were divided into two groups, the self-glazed crowns in one group were subjected to a large amount of grinding with well polishing (LaP group, n = 7), while the other group required a little amount of grinding with well polishing (LiP group, n = 6). Statistics were analysed by two-sided paired Student’s t-tests to a significance level of p < .05. The results revealed that the maximum and mean enamel wear significantly different between the antagonists of self-glazed crowns and the control teeth (p < .05). Increased amount of enamel wear was found in LaP group (p < .05). The self-glazed zirconia crowns caused more enamel wear of antagonists than natural teeth after 6 months. Occlusal adjustment and polishing were considered as possible confounders which affected wear behaviour.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
Department of Materials and Environmental Chemistry Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Funding
Guangzhou Medical University · Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.00810.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.02110.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.021 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.02910.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.029 ↗
4. 10.1111/joor.1213910.1111/joor.12139 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.00110.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001 ↗
6. 10.1007/s00784-016-1872-610.1007/s00784-016-1872-6 ↗
7. 10.1111/jerd.1222210.1111/jerd.12222 ↗
8. 10.1177/0022034597076011120110.1177/00220345970760111201 ↗
9. 10.1111/joor.1240910.1111/joor.12409 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-010.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0 ↗
11. Sorensen JA · Proceedings of the 89th Iadr General Session · 2011
12. Basunbul G · Proceedings of the 89th Iadr General Session · 2011
13. Etman MK · Int J Prosthodont · 2008 · 21 · 245
14. 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60102-310.1016/S0022-3913(10)60102-3 ↗
15. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.2000.tb01221.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.2000.tb01221.x ↗
16. Preis V · Quintessence Int · 2013 · 44 · 393
17. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.03.00810.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.03.008 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.22210.1016/j.dental.2016.08.222 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.00110.1016/j.dental.2015.12.001 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.00510.1016/j.dental.2015.12.005 ↗
21. 10.1080/17436753.2017.133636510.1080/17436753.2017.1336365 ↗
22. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x ↗
23. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01904.x10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01904.x ↗
24. 10.1067/mod.2002.12282910.1067/mod.2002.122829 ↗
25. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02205.x10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02205.x ↗
26. Song Q · Chinese J Conservative Dent · 2016 · 26 · 86
27. 10.1016/j.aanat.2007.02.01410.1016/j.aanat.2007.02.014 ↗
28. 10.1111/joor.1224210.1111/joor.12242 ↗
29. 10.1098/rsif.2017.045610.1098/rsif.2017.0456 ↗