Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Dent. 2017 Oct 16;68:19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.005

Table 1.

Comparison of published clinical studies documenting the wear of enamel against monolithic zirconia.

Author surface
treatment		 replica device material antanogist Wear (a. mean
volume loss, b.
mean wear, c.
mean maximum
vertical loss)		 control duration
(time)		 Is zirconia
acceptable
after
duration
of
observa-
tion?
Lohbauer U. and Reich S. polished epoxy resin AlphaDie 3D-non contact profilometer (CT-100, Cybertechnologies, Ingolstadt, Germany). Samples were scanned with lateral step size of 5 μm. monolithic zirconia premolar and molar crown (LAVA Plus, 3 M ESPE) (n = 14) enamel (n = 7)

ceramic (n = 10)

ceramic/enamel (n = 2)		 enamel a3.61E8 μm3, c204 μm
ceramic a3.33E8 μm3, c145 μm
ceramic/enamel a115 μm3, c163 μm		 none 2 years monolithic zirconia crowns were acceptable after 2 years
Mundhe K. et. al polished-zirconia glazed-metal ceramic gypsum 3D white light scanner (SmartSCAN3D HE scanner; Breukmann), precision: ± 9 μm enamel

monolithic yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide crown (Y-TZP; LAVA; 3 M ESPE) (n = 10) metal ceramic (65.2% Ni, 22.5% Cr, and 9.5% Mo (Bellabond Plus; BEGO) (n = 10)		 enamel enamel b17.30 μm –premolar region enamel b35.10 μm-molar region enamel b42.10 μm for premolar teeth enamel b127.00 μm for molar teeth

enamel b69.2 μm – premolar teeth enamel b179.70 μm – molar teeth		 enamel vs. enamel; enamel vs. metal-ceramic 1 year Wear of enamel caused by metal ceramic crown > zirconia crown > natural enamel
Stober T. et al. polished stone Laserscan 3D and Match 3D, version 1.6; Willytec, Gräfelfing, Germany), resolution: 20 μm yttrium-stabilised zirconia crown (Zenostar Zr Translucent; Wieland Dental) (n = 12) contralateral teeth (n = 24) enamel zirconia b14 μm, maximum vertical loss 60 μm enamel b46 μm, maximum vertical loss 151 μm

enamel b19 ± 9 μm, b26 ± 13 μm, maximum vertical loss 75 μm, maximum vertical loss 115 μm		 enamel vs. enamel 2 year The wear of enamel antagonist caused by monolithic zirconia crowns was more than natural teeth
Cardelli P. et al. glazed polyurethane resin 3D scanner (Echo2 Scanner; Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy), accuracy: 10 μm yttria-stabilized zirconia (Y-TZP; NexxZr; Sagemax, Federal Way, WA) (n = 47) enamel

nanohybrid composite		 zirconia b63 μm, enamel b76 μm
zirconia b19 μm, composite b70 μm		 none 1 year Wear of enamel or composite antagonists caused by zirconia was acceptable after 1 year.
Esquivel-Upshaw et al. polished stone 3D Laserscanner (CS2, Straumann, Germany), accuracy: 20 μm monolithic zirconia (LavaTM Plus, 3 M ESPE, PZ) (n = 16)

metal-ceramic (GC InitialTM, GC America; Argedent 62, Argen, USA, PV) (n = 14)

contralateral enamel		 enamel Zirconia c38.4 μm (6 months), c46.1 μm (1 year) enamel c51.9 μm (6 months), c70.3 μm (1 year)

metal-ceramic c30.9 μm (6 months), c49.5 μm (1 year) Enamel c64.4 μm (6 months), c63 μm (1 year)

contralateral enamel (zirconia vs. enamel) c61.8 μm (6 months), c61.1 μm (1 year) contralateral enamel (metal-ceramic vs. enamel) c62 μm (6 months), c86.4 μm (1 year)		 enamel vs. enamel 6 months, 1 year Wear of enamel caused by monolithic zirconia was comparable with metal-ceramic.