Search

This report describes the diagnosis and prosthodontic management of 2 patients with a history of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and worn dentition. Different treatment approaches were used for oral rehabilitation. Use of conventional and contemporary restorative materials resulted in functional and esthetic prosthodontic rehabilitation with a favorable prognosis., (Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: Contemporary pressable and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics exhibit good mechanical and esthetic properties. Their wear resistance compared with human enamel and traditional gold based alloys needs to be better investigated., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 2-body wear resistance of human enamel, gold alloy, and 5 different dental ceramics, including a recently introduced zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Celtra Duo)., Material and Methods: Cylindrical specimens were fabricated from a Type III gold alloy (Aurocast8), 2 hot pressed ceramics (Imagine PressX, IPS e.max Press), 2 CAD/CAM ceramics (IPS e.max CAD, Celtra Duo), and a CAD/CAM feldspathic porcelain (Vitablocs Mark II) (n=10). Celtra Duo was tested both soon after grinding and after a subsequent glaze firing cycle. Ten flat human enamel specimens were used as the control group. All specimens were subjected to a 2-body wear test in a dual axis mastication simulator for 120000 loading cycles against yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal cusps. The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical substance loss (mm) and the volume loss (mm(3)). Antagonist wear (mm) was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with 1-way ANOVA tests (α=.05)., Results: The wear depth (0.223 mm) of gold alloy was the closest to that of human enamel (0.217 mm), with no significant difference (P>.05). The greatest wear was recorded on the milled Celtra Duo (wear depth=0.320 mm), which appeared significantly less wear resistant than gold alloy or human enamel (P<.05)., Conclusions: The milled and not glazed Celtra Duo showed a small but significantly increased wear depth compared with Aurocast8 and human enamel. Wear depth and volumetric loss for the glaze-fired Celtra Duo and for the other tested ceramics did not statistically differ in comparison with the human enamel., (Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: The wear behavior of human enamel that opposes different prosthetic materials is still not clear., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate and compare the friction and wear behavior of human tooth enamel that opposes 2 indirect restorative materials: lithium disilicate glass ceramic and Type III gold., Material and Methods: Friction-wear tests on human enamel (n=5) that opposes lithium disilicate glass ceramic (n=5) and Type III gold (n=5) were conducted in a ball-on-flat configuration with a reciprocating wear testing apparatus. The wear pairs were subjected to a normal load of 9.8 N, a reciprocating amplitude of approximately 200 μm, and a reciprocating frequency of approximately 1.6 Hz for up to 1100 cycles per test under distilled water lubrication. The frictional force of each cycle was recorded, and the corresponding friction coefficient for different wear pairs was calculated. After wear testing, the wear scars on the enamel specimens were examined under a scanning electron microscope., Results: Type III gold had a significantly lower steady-state friction coefficient (P=.009) and caused less wear damage on enamel than lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Enamel that opposed lithium disilicate glass ceramic exhibited cracks, plow furrows, and surface loss, which indicated abrasive wear as the prominent wear mechanism. In comparison, the enamel wear scar that opposed Type III gold had small patches of gold smear adhered to the surface, which indicated a predominantly adhesive wear mechanism., Conclusions: A lower friction coefficient and better wear resistance were observed when human enamel was opposed by Type III gold than by lithium disilicate glass ceramic in vitro., (Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: Zirconia complete-coverage crowns are being widely used as restorations because of their improved esthetic characteristics. Data about the enamel wear potential of this ceramic after chair side adjustments are sparse., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the 3-body wear of enamel opposing 3 types of ceramic (dense sintered yttrium-stabilized zirconia; Crystal Zirconia; DLMS) (Z), a lithium disilicate (IPS e-max CAD; Ivoclar Vivadent) (E), and a conventional low-fusing feldspathic porcelain (VitaVMK-Master; Vita Zahnfabrik) (P), treated to impart a rough, smooth, or glazed surface., Material and Methods: Twenty-four specimens of each of the zirconia and the lithium disilicate ceramic were sectioned from computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing blocks into rectangular plates (15×12×2 mm). Twenty-four specimens of the feldspathic porcelain were formed into disks (12 mm diameter) from powders compressed in a silicone mold. All specimens (n=72) were prepared according to the manufacturers' recommendations. Specimens of each ceramic group were placed into 1 of 3 groups: group R, rough surface finish; group S, smooth surface finish; and group G, glazed surface finish. A total of 9 groups with 8 specimens each were placed in a 3-body wear simulator, with standardized enamel specimens (n=72) acting as the substrate. The wear of the enamel specimens was evaluated after 50,000 cycles. The data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD multiple comparison test (α=.05)., Results: The data showed that the smooth zirconia group (ZS) was associated with the least amount of enamel wear (1.26 ±0.55 mm(2)). The most antagonistic enamel wear was associated with the glazed groups ZG (5.58 ±0.66 mm(2)), EG (3.29 ±1.29 mm(2)), and PG (4.2 ±1.27 mm(2))., Conclusions: The degree of enamel wear associated with monolithic zirconia was similar to conventional feldspathic porcelain. Smoothly polished ceramic surfaces resulted in less wear of antagonistic enamel than glazing., (Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: Demand is increasing for ceramic and composite resin posterior restorations. However, ceramics are recognized for their high abrasiveness to opposing dental structure., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the wear of enamel as opposed to dental ceramics and composite resin., Material and Methods: Twenty-four test specimens (antagonists), 6 each of monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, composite resin, and enamel, were prepared into cylindrical rods. Enamel specimens were prepared from 24 extracted human permanent molar teeth. Enamel specimens were abraded against each type of antagonist with a pin-on-disk wear tester under a constant load of 25 N at 20 rpm for 4800 cycles. The maximum depth of wear (Dmax), mean depth of wear (Da), and mean surface roughness (Ra) of the enamel specimens were measured with a profilometer. All data were statistically analyzed by 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey test (α=.05). A paired t test was used to compare the Ra of enamel at baseline and after testing. The wear of both the enamel and antagonists was evaluated qualitatively with scanning electron microscopic images., Results: No significant differences were found in enamel wear depth (Dmax, Da) between monolithic zirconia (2.17 ±0.80, 1.83 ±0.75 μm) and composite resin (1.70 ±0.92, 1.37 ±0.81 μm) or between glass ceramic (8.54 ±2.31, 7.32 ±2.06 μm) and enamel (10.72 ±6.31, 8.81 ±5.16 μm). Significant differences were found when the enamel wear depth caused by monolithic zirconia and composite resin was compared with that of glass ceramic and enamel (P<.001). The Ra of enamel specimens increased significantly after wear tests with monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and enamel (P<.05); however, no difference was found among these materials., Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, monolithic zirconia and composite resin resulted in less wear depth to human enamel compared with glass ceramic and enamel. All test materials except composite resin similarly increased the enamel surface roughness after wear testing., (Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A 48-year-old man presented with worn dentition due to daytime bruxism. His chief concern was compromised esthetics due to short teeth. The occlusal vertical dimension was increased by 2 to 3 mm in the premolar area, and a maxillary titanium overdenture with composite resin facings was fabricated to address his concern. The advantages of this treatment, as opposed to complete coverage restorations, include preservation of tooth structure, lower cost, and shorter treatment time. Four years after insertion, the titanium overdenture continues to function successfully and to address the patient's concerns., (Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)