Ex Vivo Assessment of Natural Teeth Wear against Zirconia and Novel Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Composite Crowns in Primary Teeth by a Three-Dimensional Assessment Method.
Journal
International journal of dentistry
ISSN: 1687-8728
Titre abrégé: Int J Dent
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101524183
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
28
08
2021
revised:
17
11
2021
accepted:
01
12
2021
entrez:
24
1
2022
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
25
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The main purpose of the study was to assess the material wear, antagonistic natural primary teeth wear, and microhardness of zirconia (ZR), a recently launched novel glass-fiber-reinforced composite crown (GFRC). The research question was, are these aesthetic crowns resulting in antagonistic natural primary tooth wear and the crown material itself? Forty-five primary canines were divided into three groups (15 per group) and mounted against Zr (Group A), GFRC (Group B), and natural teeth as control (Group C) in the wear test machine. All samples were assessed for surface wear with pre- and post-3-dimensional scanning. In addition, microhardness was assessed for all three groups. The mean microhardness value for the Zr disc was 1157 ± 7 HV; for the GFRC disc, it was 29.35 ± 2 HV; while with natural teeth, it was 105 ± 4 HV. There was a statistically significant difference in teeth wear in the prescan and postscan in the natural tooth ( There is more significant wear loss of glass-fiber-reinforced composite discs as compared to zirconia. In addition, the wear of the antagonistic tooth with zirconia and natural teeth is more remarkable than with GFRC. There is a vast difference of microhardness between natural teeth and zirconia (almost 10 times higher) which suggests further scope of study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35069739
doi: 10.1155/2021/9670982
pmc: PMC8782618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9670982Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Abhinav Talekar et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Dent. 2000 Nov;28(8):589-94
pubmed: 11082528
Caries Res. 1992;26(2):139-41
pubmed: 1325874
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015 Apr;16(2):165-72
pubmed: 25344266
Eur J Oral Sci. 2019 Aug;127(4):369-375
pubmed: 31293020
Angle Orthod. 1996;66(4):261-4
pubmed: 8863960
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Aug;35(4):427-33
pubmed: 22518063
Pediatr Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;25(6):582-4
pubmed: 14733474
Pediatr Dent. 2018 Jul 15;40(4):253-258
pubmed: 30345963
Am J Dent. 2006 Dec;19(6):364-9
pubmed: 17212079
J Dent. 1996 Jan-Mar;24(1-2):141-8
pubmed: 8636486
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Nov;112(5):1141-50
pubmed: 24980740
J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Sep;72(3):233-44
pubmed: 7965895
J Am Dent Assoc. 1971 Jan;82(1):154-9
pubmed: 4921710
J Dent Res. 1983 May;62(5):571-4
pubmed: 6573374
Dent Mater. 1985 Dec;1(6):238-42
pubmed: 3868634
J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Feb;8(1):43-52
pubmed: 26949487
J Dent. 2010 Jul;38(7):560-8
pubmed: 20381575
Dent Mater J. 2010 Nov;29(6):713-20
pubmed: 21099153
Caries Res. 1970;4(3):206-23
pubmed: 5270190
Pediatr Dent. 2014 Sep-Oct;36(5):125-9
pubmed: 25303499
J Dent Res. 1994 Jun;73(6):1228-32
pubmed: 8046113
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Dec;122(6):614-8
pubmed: 12490872
J Dent Res. 1994 Sep;73(9):1546-53
pubmed: 7929990
J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Aug;60(2):172-8
pubmed: 3172003
J Adv Prosthodont. 2010 Sep;2(3):111-5
pubmed: 21165280
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005 Spring;29(3):221-4
pubmed: 15926438
Am J Dent. 2007 Dec;20(6):394-9
pubmed: 18269132
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014 Fall;39(1):18-22
pubmed: 25631720
J Dent Res. 1991 Mar;70(3):221-5
pubmed: 1999562
Pediatr Dent. 2021 Sep 15;43(5):355-362
pubmed: 34654496
ASDC J Dent Child. 1980 Nov-Dec;47(6):414-8
pubmed: 6934175
Pediatr Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):489-500
pubmed: 12412964
J Can Dent Assoc. 2011;77:b90
pubmed: 21736864