RESUMEN
PURPOSE: In the field of prosthodontics, patients often require complex and extensive restorative care. This can involve the use of dental restorations to restore teeth on both the maxillary and mandibular arch. Current literature has evaluated the wear properties of different dental ceramics against enamel, but studies regarding dental ceramics opposing one another are limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the wear potential and wear behavior of CAD/CAM zirconia (ZR) and lithium disilicate (LD) materials against a similar ceramic material, and how the surface finish of these dental ceramics might affect patterns of wear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a sphere-on-plate tribometer system, different surface finishes (glazed-G and glazed then polished-GP) of ZR and LD were evaluated following wear simulation. Artificial saliva of physiologic pH was used as a lubricant during wear simulation at 37°C. The coefficient of friction (COF) was calculated during the wear simulation. After wear simulation was complete, volume loss, surface roughness, and surface characterization of the specimens were analyzed using white-light interferometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical significance between materials and surface finish was established with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Based on the 2-way ANOVA, material (p = 0.002) significantly affected the COF. LD showed a higher COF (p = 0.002) than ZR. Material (p < 0.001) and surface finish (p = 0.004) significantly affected the surface roughness inside the scar. ZR had significantly lower surface roughness compared to LD (p < 0.001). For outside scar, surface finish (p < 0.001) significantly affected the surface roughness. Polished specimens showed significantly higher roughness compared to glazed specimens for both inside (p = 0.004) and outside scar (p < 0.001). For volume loss, material (p < 0.001) and the interaction between material and surface finish (p < 0.001) were statistically significant. LD had higher volume loss than ZR (p < 0.001). For both glazed and polished finished, LD-G and LD-GP had significantly higher volume loss than ZR-G (p = 0.028), and ZR-GP (p < 0.001), respectively. SEM analysis indicated particle build-up and a grooving mechanism of wear for the LD-GP specimens. This suggested a three-body wear phenomenon occurring for LD-GP specimens, which was not visible in SEM imaging for other specimen types. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the resistance to wear and low abrasiveness of ZR when compared to LD in a simulated masticatory environment. This can be best explained by the increased strength of ZR, and the introduction of three-body wear to LD specimens from the accumulation of embedded wear debris onto its surface. Wear data and comparison of SEM images following wear simulation confirmed this interpretation.