EC Dental Science

The importance of even more aesthetic restorations led to the increasing use of zirconia, which could be either veneered or full-contour monolithic zirconia. Especially in posterior areas, because of the limited aesthetic demands of patients, the use of monolithic zirconia becomes even more common. However, it is well known for its high roughness, so its behaviour against the antagonists is questionable. The purpose of this article is through literature review to examine the wear of antagonists and if this one is higher in contrast to other materials. To conclude, the result seems to be in favor of the monolithic zirconia which presents a high success rate and provokes less wear to antagonists than other materials, which are also used for final restorations, such as porcelain. Nevertheless, long term randomized control studies are required for a more adequate documentation.

 Keywords: Zirconia; Wear; Monolithic Zirconia; Porcelain; Opposing Teeth; Metal-Ceramic Restorations

1. Konstantinidis I., et al. “Clinical outcomes of monolithic zirconia crowns with CAD/CAM technology. A 1-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 65 patients”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11 (2018): E2523.
2. Badami V and Ahuja B. “Biosmart materials: breaking new ground in dentistry”. Scientific World Journal (2014): 986912.
3. Aqustin-Panadero R., et al. “Zirconia in fixed prosthesis. A literature review”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 1 (2014): e66-e73.
4. Oilo M., et al. “Fractographic features during clinical function”. European Journal of Oral Sciences 3 (2014): 238-244.
5. Oilo M., et al. “Simulation of clinical fractures for three different all-ceramic crowns”. European Journal of Oral Sciences 3 (2014): 245-250.
6. Goyveia DNM., et al. “A Fully digital approach to fabricating a CAD-CAM ceramic crown to fit an existing removable partial denture”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 4 (2019): 571-575.
7. , et al. “Zirconia properties, clinical applications and presentations of clinical cases”. Stomatology 66.1 (2009): 3-16.
8. , et al. “Zirconia as a material for prosthetic restorations”. Stomatology 40 (2012): 249-260.
9. Tzanakakis et al. “Zirconia. Contemporary views of a much-discussed material, structure, applications and clinical considerations”. Greek Dental Years 57 (2013): 101-137.
10. Koyrentas S. “Systems CAD/CAM in restorative dentistry 1”. Greek Dental Years 55 (2011): 109-123.
11. Pathan MS., et al. “Assessment of antagonist enamel wear and clinical performance of full-contour monolithic zirconia crowns: one-year results of prospective study”. Journal of Prosthodontics 1 (2019): e411-e416.
12. Koyrentas S. “Systems CAD/CAM in restorative dentistry 1”. Greek Dental Years 55 (2011): 203-214.
13. Silva LHD., et al. “Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods”. Brazilian Oral Research 1 (2017): e58.
14. Stawarczyk B., et al. “Comparison of four monolithic zirconia materials with conversional ones: Contrast ratio, grain size, four-point flexural strength and two-body wear”. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 59 (2016): 128-138.
15. Gundugollu Y., et al. “Comparison of the effect of monolithic and layered zirconia on natural teeth wear: An in vitro study”. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 4 (2018): 336-342.
16. Mundhe K., et al. “Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonistic to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry3 (2015): 358-363.
17. Stober T., et al. “Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation8 (2016): 621-629.
18. Gou M., et al. “Antagonist enamel wear of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia posterior crowns in vivo: A systematic review”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry4 (2018): 598-603.