See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276414616

Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia

and metal ceramic crowns

Article  in  The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · May 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001

CITATIONS READS

90 2,791

4 authors:

Kailas Mundhe Veena Jain

All India Institute of Medical Sciences All India Institute of Medical Sciences
3 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   573 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gunjan Pruthi Naseem Shah

All India Institute of Medical Sciences North DMC Medical College
27 PUBLICATIONS   207 CITATIONS    116 PUBLICATIONS   2,418 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Revascularization with and without Platelet-rich Plasma in Nonvital, Immature, Anterior Teeth: A Pilot Clinical Study. View project

Bite force measuring tool View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gunjan Pruthi on 20 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CLINICAL SCIENCE

Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel

antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns
Kailas Mundhe, MDS,a Veena Jain, MDS,b Gunjan Pruthi, MDS,c and Naseem Shah, MDSd

Different materials, including ABSTRACT

metal, metal ceramic, and ce- Statement of problem. Tooth wear is a complex process, which, if not prevented, may adversely
ramic, are used to fabricate affect the integrity of the stomatognathic system. Different restorative dental materials may affect
extracoronal restorations.1 In the amount of wear on natural enamel antagonists.
the past, ceramic crowns had
Purpose. The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate and compare the wear of enamel
inferior tensile strength, hard- opposing natural enamel, zirconia, and metal ceramic crowns after 1 year.
ness, brittleness, and resis-
tance to fracture than a metal 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
ceramic crown.2 Recent de-
in the opposing arch were selected. For each participant, 1 monolithic polished zirconia crown and
velopments have led to ceramic 1 glazed metal ceramic crown were fabricated and cemented. To evaluate the wear of the
restorations with improved antagonistic natural enamel (premolar and molar), polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made
properties.3 New low-fusing immediately (baseline) and at 1 year after cementation. The wear of natural enamel against natural
ceramic materials are reported enamel was evaluated as the control. The resulting casts were scanned (using a 3D white light
to be more wear-friendly be- scanner), and 3D software was used to calculate the maximum amount of linear wear.
cause of their lower hardness, Results. One-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze data. Mean ±SD occlusal
lower concentrations of crystal wear of the antagonistic enamel 1 year after the cementation of metal ceramic crowns was 69.20
phase, and smaller crystal ±4.10 mm for premolar teeth and 179.70 ±8.09 mm for molar teeth, whereas for zirconia crowns, it
size.4,5 was 42.10 ±4.30 mm for premolar teeth and 127.00 ±5.03 mm for molar teeth. Occlusal wear of
natural enamel opposing natural enamel was 17.30 ±1.88 mm in the premolar region and 35.10
Zirconia, one of the more
±2.60 mm in the molar region. The Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the occlusal wear of
recently introduced materials antagonistic enamel 1 year after the cementation of a metal ceramic crown was significantly higher
is a crystalline dioxide of zir- (P<.001) than that of an opposing zirconia crown or natural enamel.
conium, and its most useful
Conclusions. Zirconia crowns led to less wear of antagonist enamel than metal ceramic crowns, but
mechanical properties are ob-
more than natural enamel. (J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:358-363)
tained in multiphase material
known as partially stabilized zirconia (PSZ).6 Zirconia dental porcelains. As a result, its clinical use is
has a polymorphic structure with chemical and volume increasing.7,8
stability and suppresses crack progression by means High-strength zirconia is generally layered with
of volume extension caused by the transformation veneering porcelain, which is prone to fracture because
toughening mechanism. This toughening occurs of weak interface. Therefore, zirconia-fixed dental pros-
during the phase transition,7 leading to higher fracture theses without veneering ceramic, called monolithic
strength and greater hardness than conventional zirconia reconstructions, are currently popular.9,10 Other

a
Former Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
b
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
c
Senior Research Associate, Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
d
Professor, Department of Endodontics and Conservative Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

358 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

September 2015 359

natural enamel opposing a polished zirconia crown, a

Clinical Implications metal ceramic crown, and natural enamel (control).
The results of this clinical study indicate that
MATERIAL AND METHODS
monolithic zirconia may be preferable to feldspathic
porcelain for the fabrication of posterior crowns as it Before the study began, ethical clearance was obtained
causes less wear of antagonist natural enamel. from the ethics committee of the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (reference no. AAA-01/02.04.2012).
Ten participants of either sex, between 18 and 35 years
advantages of using these crowns include a conservative of age, requiring bilateral posterior mandibular complete
preparation as there is no need to maintain space for the crowns were enrolled. The prerequisite was that they
veneer porcelain. Additionally, the technique-sensitive should have healthy opposing natural teeth. On the basis
procedure of veneering is also eliminated.11 of detailed history, oral and radiographic examination,
Monolithic zirconia crowns can be polished using and blood biochemistry, patients showing any signs
different techniques, or they can be glazed before de- of developmental enamel defects, fluorosis, parafunc-
finitive cementation.10,11 However, various authors have tional habits, temporomandibular joint disorder, calcium
recommended the use of polished zirconia as it causes metabolic disorders, or osteoporosis were excluded from
less wear of the antagonist enamel under in vitro the study. The study was explained to the participants,
conditions.9,10,12,13 and verbal and written informed consent were obtained.
Tooth wear is a complex, multifactorial phenomenon In each participant, the teeth were divided into 3
involving the interplay of biological, mechanical, and groups: natural enamel opposing natural enamel (natural
chemical factors.14,15 It is caused by complex masticatory enamel/control group); natural enamel opposing metal
movements as the jaw moves in different directions. ceramic crown (metal ceramic group/experimental group);
Wear patterns vary depending upon joint pathology, and natural enamel opposing zirconia crown (zirconia
occlusion, muscle tone, lubricants, individual dietary group/experimental group). One complete crown was
habits, and the type of restorative material used.16,17 fabricated in monolithic zirconia and another in metal
Wear properties of restorative dental materials differ ceramic. Each crown was cemented on either side of the
from those of natural teeth and can change the wear rate mandibular posterior region. A random number table was
of antagonistic natural teeth.18-20 Ideally, the wear formulated by the statistician for assignment of the clinical
resistance of the restorative material and enamel should crown materials on each side. All procedures were carried
be similar.21 Wear affects the health of the stomatog- out by a single operator (MK), and all crowns were
nathic system, resulting in loss of vertical dimension, fabricated in a single commercial laboratory.
poor esthetics, increased tooth sensitivity, and reduced The zirconia crown was monolithic yttrium-stabilized
masticatory function.16,22-24 Seghi et al25 studied the ef- zirconium oxide (Y-TZP; LAVA; 3M ESPE). For metal
fect of different ceramics on human enamel and sug- ceramic crowns, a nickel chromium alloy was used with
gested that a restorative dental material should have a reported composition of 65.2% Ni, 22.5% Cr, and
wear similar to enamel. Therefore, the wear that occurs 9.5% Mo (Bellabond Plus; BEGO). Feldspathic porcelain
between the enamel of natural teeth and restorations (Ceramco 3; Dentsply Intl) was used for layering metal
should be considered in the selection of restorative ma- substructures.
terials.26 However, the complexity of the wear process in The abutment teeth were prepared to receive metal
the oral environment makes it difficult to conduct tooth- ceramic and zirconia crowns according to the randomi-
wear studies.27 zation list. Tooth preparation guidelines for the metal
In vitro studies have been conducted to determine ceramic crown were an axial tooth reduction of 1.2 mm,
the effect of monolithic zirconia on opposing natural an occlusal reduction of 1.5 to 2 mm, and a deep chamfer
enamel.13,26,28-30 The results of these studies have shown margin. For the zirconia crown, an axial tooth reduction
that polished monolithic zirconia restorations lead to less of 1.5 mm, an occlusal reduction of 2 mm, and a shoulder
wear of enamel antagonists than those fabricated in margin design were used. The definitive impression was
glazed zirconia or feldspathic porcelain. Although these made after gingival displacement (Sure-Cord Plus; Sure
studies allow precise control of the environment and Dent Corp) in a customized tray with polyvinyl siloxane
variables which influence the wear process of dental hard material (Reprosil and Aquasil; Dentsply Caulk). Interim
tissues and biomaterials, there is little correlation be- crowns (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE) were cemented with zinc
tween the in vitro findings and clinical performance.31 oxide noneugenol interim cement (RelyX Temp NE; 3M
Because of the greater complexity of clinical environ- ESPE) on the prepared teeth before the cementation of
ments,5,31,32 a controlled clinical study is needed. This the definitive crowns. The definitive cast was fabricated
study was designed to evaluate and compare the wear of in Type IV gypsum (Kalrock; Kalabhai, Karson Pvt, Ltd).

Mundhe et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

360 Volume 114 Issue 3

Figure 1. A, Scanned 3-dimensional (3D) images of natural enamel of maxillary premolar and first molar opposing zirconia crown at baseline. B,
Scanned 3D images of natural enamel of maxillary premolar and first molar opposing zirconia crown after 1 year. C, Superimposed image of natural
enamel of maxillary premolar and first molar opposing zirconia crown. Red areas represent enamel wear on buccal and lingual cusps after 1 year of
function.

A conventional laboratory technique was used for the and depth assessments of wear processes occurring on
fabrication of the metal ceramic crowns. the antagonistic teeth. A red color indicated the amount
Zirconia monolithic crown was fabricated with a of wear. The teeth scanned were maxillary second pre-
computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing molars and first molars opposing zirconia and metal
technique (LAVA; 3M ESPE). Once a definitive crown ceramic crowns, maxillary right and left first premolars,
was fabricated and evaluated intraorally, occlusal ad- and second molars opposing natural enamel. Figures 1A
justments were made. All adjusted surfaces were pol- and 1B show scanned 3D images for natural enamel of
ished for zirconia crowns and glazed for metal ceramic the maxillary premolar and first molar opposing zirconia
crowns before cementation. Definitive crowns were crown at baseline and after 1 year. Figure 1C is the
cemented simultaneously with glass ionomer luting superimposed image showing the wear of natural enamel
cement (Ketac Cem; 3M ESPE). Participants were against the zirconia crown. Figure 2 shows the same for
advised to use dental floss and/or an interdental brush metal ceramic crowns.
for proper maintenance of oral hygiene. Statistical analysis of the data was done with Stata
To evaluate the wear of antagonist enamel, polyvinyl software (Stata version 12; StataCorp LP; a=0.05). As the
siloxane impressions of the maxillary arch were made just parameters followed a normal distribution, 1-way
before treatment began and after 1 year of cementation. repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine
Impressions were poured in Type III gypsum (Kalstone; the overall significance of mean among the 3 groups.
Kalabhai, Karson Pvt Ltd), and the resulting casts were The Bonferroni correction was applied for pair-wise
scanned with a 3-dimensional (3D) white light scanner comparison.
with a precision of ±9 mm (SmartSCAN3D HE scanner;
Breukmann).33 The scanner had two 1.4-megapixel red-
RESULTS
green-blue cameras and a fringe pattern projector that
captured both geometry and texture. Acquisition was Results showing the wear of antagonist enamel at
made along a 360-degree arc at various angles. Align- occlusal areas against natural enamel (control group)
ment and merging were performed with proprietary and 2-crown systems are shown in Figure 3. One-way
software (Optocat; Breukmann). repeated measures ANOVA determined a significant
Baseline scanned images were superimposed over the difference in the degree of antagonist enamel loss be-
images made at 1 year with 3D software (Polyworks; tween the natural enamel and 2-crown systems (P<.001).
Innovmetric Software). The software had a color scale in The Bonferroni test showed that differences in enamel
micrometers. Data obtained were used to establish linear wear opposing 2 different ceramic systems were

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Mundhe et al

September 2015 361

Figure 2. A, Scanned 3-dimensional (3D) images of natural enamel of maxillary premolar and first molar opposing metal ceramic crown at baseline. B,
Scanned 3D images of natural enamel of maxillary premolar and first molar opposing metal ceramic crown at baseline at 1 year. C, Superimposed
images. Red areas represent enamel wear on buccal and lingual cusps after 1 year of function.

wear of opposing enamel, whereas the enamel wear

opposing zirconia crown was significantly less (P<.001)
*# P<0.001
after 1 year. Premolar enamel wear was also compara-
Molar

* tively less than molar wear for all the groups (P<.001).

DISCUSSION
Wear is defined as the progressive loss of material from
*# P<0.001
Premolar

Zirconia the contacting surfaces of a body caused by relative

* Metal ceramic motion at the surface.14,15 Differences in composition and
Natural enamel physical properties of tooth substances and restorative
materials result in differential wear with time. This
mismatch of wear rate can result in either excessive wear
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 of the restorative material or the opposing dentition and
Natural Enamel Wear (μm), mean ±SD may subsequently result in occlusal destabilization, tooth
Figure 3. Wear of natural enamel opposing natural enamel, metal sensitivity, or loss of esthetics.16,19,22,23 Therefore, the
ceramic crowns, or zirconia crowns after 1 year of follow-up. * Group effect of restorative materials on the wear of natural
Metal Ceramic or Group Zirconia is significantly different from Group enamel should be studied.
Natural Enamel; # Group Zirconia is significantly different from Group In this clinical study, the mean wear of opposing
Metal Ceramic. enamel was found to be 17.3 mm annually for premolars
and 35.10 mm annually for molars, which were similar to
the results of the study conducted by Lambrechts et al.21
statistically significant. This confirmed that the ceramic That study also noted that the wear of enamel opposing a
system used to fabricate the fixed dental prosthesis premolar zirconia restoration was 42.10 mm and 127.00
influenced the wear of the antagonist natural enamel. mm for a zirconia molar restoration, which was signifi-
The control group, in which natural enamel opposed cantly higher than that of normal tooth wear without any
natural enamel, demonstrated the least amount of wear restoration. The wear of enamel opposing zirconia was
after 1 year; this difference was statistically significant significantly lower than that opposing a metal ceramic
compared with that found in the experimental groups. crown (occlusal surface in ceramic), which was found to
Metal ceramic crowns produced the greatest amount of be 69.20 mm in the premolar region and 179.70 mm in the

Mundhe et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

362 Volume 114 Issue 3

molar region after 1 year of follow-up. Similar findings that the occluding area, number of contacts, and masti-
were noted in different in vitro studies.27,34 cation force in the first molar region are greater than in
Our results were similar to those of Etman et al,5 who the premolar region.36
quantitatively measured tooth and ceramic wear by using The small sample size and short observational period
a novel superimposition technique. They reported that are limitations of the study. Therefore, a long-term study
the wear of an antagonist tooth against Procera coping with larger sample size is suggested. The wear of the
with All Ceram (feldspathic porcelain) layering was more crown material should also be assessed in future studies.
in the molar region (184.24 mm) than with another metal
ceramic crown with a metal occlusal surface (106.90 mm) CONCLUSIONS
and experimental glass ceramic crowns (149.70 mm) after
Within the limitations of this in vivo study, conclusions
1 year. Metzler et al5,20 showed that low-fusing ceramics
are as follows: (1) statistically significant wear of antag-
caused less wear of natural enamel because of their lower
onist natural enamel opposing natural teeth, metal
hardness, lower concentration of crystal phase, and small
ceramic crowns, and zirconia crowns was observed in the
crystal size.
premolar and molar regions after 1 year; (2) the wear of
Surface hardness and friction coefficient are commonly
natural enamel opposing metal ceramic and zirconia
used to estimate the degree of wear of restorative dental
crowns was significantly higher than the wear of natural
materials and natural enamel. Conventionally, greater
enamel opposing natural enamel; (3) the wear of natural
hardness has been believed to cause more wear.26 Enamel
enamel opposing zirconia crowns was significantly less
generally has a Vickers hardness of 320 to 380 kg/mm2,
than that of metal ceramic crowns in the premolar and
which is lower than that of feldspathic porcelain (500 kg/
molar regions after 1 year; and (4) the wear of natural
mm2) or zirconia (1346 to 1368 kg/mm2).30,35 Zirconia has
enamel opposing natural enamel, metal ceramic crowns,
high surface hardness in comparison with other low-
and zirconia crowns in the premolar region was signifi-
fusing feldspathic porcelains. Therefore, more wear
cantly less than in the molar region after 1 year.
might be expected from zirconia. However, as reported by
various investigators, the hardness of restorative materials
alone is not a reliable predictor of the wear of opposing
enamel.19,32,35 According to DeLong,22 the wear mecha- REFERENCES
nism for brittle materials is different in nature. When 1. Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Controlled, prospective clinical splitmouth
ceramic slides against ceramic or enamel, wear does not study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results. Am J Dent
2010;23:161-7.
occur by plastic deformation as with metals but by 2. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with
microfracture.22 Other factors responsible for wear are clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:
389-404.
occlusal force, frequency of mastication, abrasiveness of 3. Sjogren G, Lantto R, Granberg A, Sundstrom BO, Tillberg A. Clinical ex-
diet, surface roughness, physical properties of the material, amination of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns (Empress) in general
practice: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:122-8.
and surface irregularities such as hard impurity particles, 4. Oh W, Delong R, Anusavice KJ. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a
fine anatomic grooves, pits, or ridges.4,17,24 literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:451-9.
5. Etman MK, Woolford M, Dunne S. Quantitative measurement of tooth and
Other reasons for less wear of enamel against zirconia ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:245-52.
may be the superior physical properties and surface 6. Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature 1975;258:703-4.
7. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials
features of zirconia compared with feldspathic porcelain, 1999;20:1-25.
such as its hardness, bend strength, fracture toughness, 8. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness
and microstructure of a selection of all ceramic materials. Part I. Pressable and
and density, which enable it to maintain a smooth sur- alumina glass-infiltrated ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:441-8.
face during wear tests and cause less wear.30 In the 9. Park JH, Park S, Lee K, Yun KD, Lim HL. Antagonist wear of three CAD/
CAM anatomic contour zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:20-9.
present study, the zirconia crowns were polished instead 10. Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Schmutz F, Trottmann A, Roos M, Hammerle CH.
of being glazed. This might be the reason for less wear Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their cor-
responding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:102-12.
compared with that of glazed feldspathic porcelain 11. Mitov G, Heintze SD, Walz S, Woll K, Mueklich F, Pospiech P. Wear
crowns.9-12 Etman et al5 in their clinical study reported behaviour of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different
finishing procedures. Dent Mater 2012;28:909-18.
that wear was seen on the glaze layer of feldspathic 12. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of
ceramic crowns after 6 months of clinical use and that polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:22-9.
13. Amer R, Kurklu D, Kateeb E, Seghi RR. Three body wear potential of dental
this could increase surface roughness and the wear yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing
pattern. Stawarczyk et al10 and Amer et al13 also reported treatments. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1151-5.
14. Mair L, Stolarski T, Vowles R, Lloyd C. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations
that polished monolithic zirconia caused less wear of and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent 1996;24:141-8.
antagonist enamel than glazed zirconia because of the 15. Ramalho A, Miranda J. The relationship between wear and dissipated energy
in sliding systems. Wear 2006;260:361-7.
lower friction coefficient. 16. Mahalick J, Knap F, Weiter E. Occlusal wear in prosthodontics. J Am Dent
The present study showed significantly more wear of Assoc 1971;82:154-9.
17. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear of
molar teeth than of premolar opposing 2 different crown ceramic and antagonist-a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro.
systems and natural enamel (Fig. 3). The reason could be Dent Mater 2008;24:433-49.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Mundhe et al

September 2015 363

18. Sulong M, Aziz RA. Wear of materials used in dentistry: a review of the 31. Preis V, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Hanhel S, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear per-
literature. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:342-9. formance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains. Dent Mater
19. Yip KH, Smales RJ, Kaidonis JA. Differential wear of teeth and restorative 2011;27:796-804.
materials: clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:350-6. 32. Dahl BL, Oilo G. In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. Quin-
20. Metzler KT, Woody RD, Miller AW, Miller BH. In vitro investigation of the tessence Int 1994;25:561-5.
wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:356-64. 33. Slizewski A, Friess M, Semal P. Surface scanning of anthropological
21. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Quantitative specimens: nominal-actual comparison with low cost laser scanner and
in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 1989;68:1752-4. high end fringe light projection surface scanning systems. Quartar 2010;57:
22. DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: Rethinking the current ap- 179-87.
proaches: How to measure wear. Dent Mater 2006;22:702-11. 34. Turp V, Tuncelli B, Sen D, Goller G. Evaluation of hardness and fracture
23. Gallegos LI, Nicholls JI. In vitro two-body wear of three veneering resins. toughness, coupled with microstructural analysis, of zirconia ceramics
J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:172-8. stored in environments with different pH values. Dent Mater J 2012;31:
24. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Young H, Jones J, Yang M, Anusavice KJ. In vivo wear 891-902.
of enamel by a lithia disilicate-based core ceramic used for posterior fixed 35. Callister WD Jr, Rethwisch DG. Material science and engineering: An
partial dentures: first-year results. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:391-6. introduction. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 467-509.
25. Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by different 36. Howell AH, Brudevold F. Vertical forces used during chewing of food. J Dent
dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res 1991;70:221-5. Res 1950;29:133-6.
26. Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. A study on the in-vitro
wears of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain.
J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:111-5. Corresponding author:
27. Lee A, Swain M, He L, Lyons K. Wear behaviour of human enamel against Dr Gunjan Pruthi
lithium disilicate glass ceramic and type III gold. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112: Center for Dental Education and Research
1399-405. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
28. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic New Delhi - 110029
zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent INDIA
2014;112:1141-50. Email: [email protected]
29. Passos SP, Torrealba Y, Major P, Linke B, Flores-Mir C, Nychka JA. In vitro
wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review. J Prostho- Acknowledgement
dont 2014;23:593-601. The authors acknowledge S. P. Sharma, Creative Infocom Pvt, Ltd, Noida, India,
30. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW, Seo DG, Jun SH, et al. Wear evaluation of for scanning the models and making the measurements.
the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other
porcelains. J Dent 2012;40:979-88. Copyright © 2015 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Receive Tables of Contents by E-mail

To receive tables of contents by e-mail, sign up through our Web site at http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/peri-
odicals/ympr.

Instructions
Log on and click “Register” in the upper right-hand corner. After completing the registration process, click on “My
Alerts,” then “Add Table of Contents Alert.” Select the category “Mosby” or type The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry in
the search field and click on the Journal title. The title will then appear, and having already completed the Registration
process, you may add tables of contents alerts by accessing an issue of the Journal and clicking on the “Add TOC
Alert” link.
You will receive an e-mail message confirming that you have been added to the mailing list.
Note that tables of contents e-mails will be sent when a new issue is posted to the Web site.

Mundhe et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

View publication stats