IADR 95th

66/75

-66-initial MC0674 Wear of Enamel by Monolithic ZirconiaCrownsPoster Presentation11:00 AM–12:15 PM Mar 23, 2017CC, First Floor Authors:Authors:Nader Abdulhameed(Presenter)University Of FloridaArthur Clark, University of FloridaFan Ren, University of FloridaJosephine Esquivel-Upshaw, University of FloridaAbstract: Objectives: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the in vivomaximum wear of Objectives: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the in vivomaximum wear of enamel opposing monolithic zirconiacrowns, enamel opposing porcelain fused to metal crowns and enamel opposing enamel.Methods: Thirty patients who needed single crowns were randomized to receive either a monolithic zirconiacrown (LavaTMPlus, 3M ESPE) or a metal ceramic crown (GC InitialTM, GC America; Argedent62, Argen, USA). Teeth to be crowned had to be opposing a tooth minimally restored with either a Class I or II restoration but without cuspalcoverage. Two non-restored opposing teeth in the same quadrants were also identified to serve as the enamel versus enamel controls. Teeth were prepared and crowns fabricated according to the randomization table. At controls. Teeth were prepared and crowns fabricated according to the randomization table. At delivery, if crowns needed to be adjusted, they were polished using rubber tips (Dialite, Brassler, USA). Crowns were cemented using resin cement (RelyXUnicem2, 3M ESPE). Excess cement was cleaned. Patients were recalled at one-week post cementation to ensure that the crowns did not need to be adjusted further. Quadrants were scanned (3M True Definition Scanner, 3M ESPE) as baseline data. Patients were recalled at one-year and re-scanned. Scanned images were compared using the Geomagicsoftware (Geomagiccontrol XTM, 3D systems) to determine maximum wear of teeth. Statistical analysis was performed to using ANOVA to determine any significant differences between the wear of enamel with zirconia, PFM and enamel.significant differences between the wear of enamel with zirconia, PFM and enamel.Results: 16 zirconiaand 14 PFM crowns were delivered. Maxiumumwear for Zrcrowns was 54.75 ±14.8 µm; antagonist enamel = 52.7 ±14.0 µm; and enamel controls = 56.1 ±15.5 µm. Maximum wear for PFM crowns was = 45.8 ±10.3 µm; antagonist enamel = 46.5 ±11.1 µm; and enamel controls = 46.6 ±10.8 µm. No statistically significant difference (p = 0.8) was noted between the wear of Zrversus PFM and Zrversus enamel-enamel controls.Conclusions: Monolithic zirconiaversus enamel exhibited comparable maximum wear compared with PFM versus enamel and enamel versus enamel after one year intraorally.This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:3M ESPE, NIH-NIDCR R01 DE025001-01A1Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.I have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by Josephine Esquivel-UpshawReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-66-abstract number 0674, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/330660, 2017