Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns

  • Kailas Mundhe
    Former Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
    Search for articles by this author
  • Veena Jain
    Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
    Search for articles by this author
  • Gunjan Pruthi
    Corresponding author: Dr Gunjan Pruthi, Center for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110029, INDIA
    Senior Research Associate, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
    Search for articles by this author
  • Naseem Shah
    Professor, Department of Endodontics and Conservative Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
    Search for articles by this author


      Statement of problem

      Tooth wear is a complex process, which, if not prevented, may adversely affect the integrity of the stomatognathic system. Different restorative dental materials may affect the amount of wear on natural enamel antagonists.


      The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate and compare the wear of enamel opposing natural enamel, zirconia, and metal ceramic crowns after 1 year.

      Material and methods

      Ten participants between 18 and 35 years of age requiring 2 complete crowns, 1 on either side of maxillary or mandibular molar region, and having healthy natural teeth in the opposing arch were selected. For each participant, 1 monolithic polished zirconia crown and 1 glazed metal ceramic crown were fabricated and cemented. To evaluate the wear of the antagonistic natural enamel (premolar and molar), polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made immediately (baseline) and at 1 year after cementation. The wear of natural enamel against natural enamel was evaluated as the control. The resulting casts were scanned (using a 3D white light scanner), and 3D software was used to calculate the maximum amount of linear wear.


      One-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze data. Mean ±SD occlusal wear of the antagonistic enamel 1 year after the cementation of metal ceramic crowns was 69.20 ±4.10 μm for premolar teeth and 179.70 ±8.09 μm for molar teeth, whereas for zirconia crowns, it was 42.10 ±4.30 μm for premolar teeth and 127.00 ±5.03 μm for molar teeth. Occlusal wear of natural enamel opposing natural enamel was 17.30 ±1.88 μm in the premolar region and 35.10 ±2.60 μm in the molar region. The Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the occlusal wear of antagonistic enamel 1 year after the cementation of a metal ceramic crown was significantly higher (P<.001) than that of an opposing zirconia crown or natural enamel.


      Zirconia crowns led to less wear of antagonist enamel than metal ceramic crowns, but more than natural enamel.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Federlin M.
        • Hiller K.A.
        • Schmalz G.
        Controlled, prospective clinical splitmouth study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results.
        Am J Dent. 2010; 23: 161-167
        • Conrad H.J.
        • Seong W.J.
        • Pesun I.J.
        Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98: 389-404
        • Sjogren G.
        • Lantto R.
        • Granberg A.
        • Sundstrom B.O.
        • Tillberg A.
        Clinical examination of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns (Empress) in general practice: a retrospective study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 122-128
        • Oh W.
        • Delong R.
        • Anusavice K.J.
        Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 451-459
        • Etman M.K.
        • Woolford M.
        • Dunne S.
        Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 245-252
        • Garvie R.C.
        • Hannink R.H.
        • Pascoe R.T.
        Ceramic steel?.
        Nature. 1975; 258: 703-704
        • Piconi C.
        • Maccauro G.
        Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial.
        Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 1-25
        • Guazzato M.
        • Albakry M.
        • Ringer S.P.
        • Swain M.V.
        Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all ceramic materials. Part I. Pressable and alumina glass-infiltrated ceramics.
        Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 441-448
        • Park J.H.
        • Park S.
        • Lee K.
        • Yun K.D.
        • Lim H.L.
        Antagonist wear of three CAD/CAM anatomic contour zirconia ceramics.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 20-29
        • Stawarczyk B.
        • Ozcan M.
        • Schmutz F.
        • Trottmann A.
        • Roos M.
        • Hammerle C.H.
        Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists.
        Acta Odontol Scand. 2013; 71: 102-112
        • Mitov G.
        • Heintze S.D.
        • Walz S.
        • Woll K.
        • Mueklich F.
        • Pospiech P.
        Wear behaviour of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different finishing procedures.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 909-918
        • Janyavula S.
        • Lawson N.
        • Cakir D.
        • Beck P.
        • Ramp L.C.
        • Burgess J.O.
        The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 22-29
        • Amer R.
        • Kurklu D.
        • Kateeb E.
        • Seghi R.R.
        Three body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1151-1155
        • Mair L.
        • Stolarski T.
        • Vowles R.
        • Lloyd C.
        Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop.
        J Dent. 1996; 24: 141-148
        • Ramalho A.
        • Miranda J.
        The relationship between wear and dissipated energy in sliding systems.
        Wear. 2006; 260: 361-367
        • Mahalick J.
        • Knap F.
        • Weiter E.
        Occlusal wear in prosthodontics.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1971; 82: 154-159
        • Heintze S.D.
        • Cavalleri A.
        • Forjanic M.
        • Zellweger G.
        • Rousson V.
        Wear of ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro.
        Dent Mater. 2008; 24: 433-449
        • Sulong M.
        • Aziz R.A.
        Wear of materials used in dentistry: a review of the literature.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63: 342-349
        • Yip K.H.
        • Smales R.J.
        • Kaidonis J.A.
        Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 350-356
        • Metzler K.T.
        • Woody R.D.
        • Miller A.W.
        • Miller B.H.
        In vitro investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 356-364
        • Lambrechts P.
        • Braem M.
        • Vuylsteke-Wauters M.
        • Vanherle G.
        Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel.
        J Dent Res. 1989; 68: 1752-1754
        • DeLong R.
        Intra-oral restorative materials wear: Rethinking the current approaches: How to measure wear.
        Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 702-711
        • Gallegos L.I.
        • Nicholls J.I.
        In vitro two-body wear of three veneering resins.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 60: 172-178
        • Esquivel-Upshaw J.F.
        • Young H.
        • Jones J.
        • Yang M.
        • Anusavice K.J.
        In vivo wear of enamel by a lithia disilicate-based core ceramic used for posterior fixed partial dentures: first-year results.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19: 391-396
        • Seghi R.R.
        • Rosenstiel S.F.
        • Bauer P.
        Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro.
        J Dent Res. 1991; 70: 221-225
        • Jung Y.S.
        • Lee J.W.
        • Choi Y.J.
        • Ahn J.S.
        • Shin S.W.
        • Huh J.B.
        A study on the in-vitro wears of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2010; 2: 111-115
        • Lee A.
        • Swain M.
        • He L.
        • Lyons K.
        Wear behaviour of human enamel against lithium disilicate glass ceramic and type III gold.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1399-1405
        • Sripetchdanond J.
        • Leevailoj C.
        Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1141-1150
        • Passos S.P.
        • Torrealba Y.
        • Major P.
        • Linke B.
        • Flores-Mir C.
        • Nychka J.A.
        In vitro wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review.
        J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 593-601
        • Kim M.J.
        • Oh S.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Ju S.W.
        • Seo D.G.
        • Jun S.H.
        • et al.
        Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains.
        J Dent. 2012; 40: 979-988
        • Preis V.
        • Behr M.
        • Kolbeck C.
        • Hanhel S.
        • Handel G.
        • Rosentritt M.
        Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains.
        Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 796-804
        • Dahl B.L.
        • Oilo G.
        In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials.
        Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 561-565
        • Slizewski A.
        • Friess M.
        • Semal P.
        Surface scanning of anthropological specimens: nominal-actual comparison with low cost laser scanner and high end fringe light projection surface scanning systems.
        Quartar. 2010; 57: 179-187
        • Turp V.
        • Tuncelli B.
        • Sen D.
        • Goller G.
        Evaluation of hardness and fracture toughness, coupled with microstructural analysis, of zirconia ceramics stored in environments with different pH values.
        Dent Mater J. 2012; 31: 891-902
        • Callister Jr., W.D.
        • Rethwisch D.G.
        Material science and engineering: An introduction.
        9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York2013: 467-509
        • Howell A.H.
        • Brudevold F.
        Vertical forces used during chewing of food.
        J Dent Res. 1950; 29: 133-136