Authors : Mamatha N.; Akshitha H. M.; Smitha Gujjar B.; Prathima K.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3ta8bt6m

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug861

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background: The wear of opposing enamel is an important consideration when selecting restorative materials, particularly for posterior restorations. Material composition and surface characteristics may influence the extent of antagonist enamel wear. This study compared the wear behaviour of enamel opposing metal, glass ceramic, and monolithic zirconia.  Aim: To comparatively evaluate maximum wear depth (Dmax), mean wear depth (Da), and average surface roughness (Ra) of human enamel following standardized abrasion against metal, glass ceramic, and monolithic zirconia.  Materials and Methods: Thirty extracted, unrestored, non-carious human permanent molars were divided into three groups of 10 specimens each according to the antagonist material: metal, glass ceramic, and zirconia. Wear testing was performed using a pin-ondisc abrasion tester at a load of 25 N and 20 cycles/min. Enamel surface characteristics were quantitatively evaluated using optical profilometry, while scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative assessment. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.

Keywords : Dental Ceramics; Enamel Wear; Glass Ceramic; Metal; Monolithic Zirconia; Surface Roughness; Wear Depth.

References :

1. Hartkamp O, Lohbauer U, Reich S. Antagonist wear by polished zirconia crowns. Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20(3):263-274.
2. Lohbauer U, Reich S. Antagonist wear of monolithic zirconia crowns after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1167-1174. doi:10.1007/s00784-016-1872-6.
3. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Kim MJ, Hsu SM, Abdulhameed N, Jenkins R, Neal D, et al. Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent. 2018;68:19-27. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.005.
4. Ludovichetti FS, Trindade FZ, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Fonseca RG. Wear resistance and abrasiveness of CAD-CAM monolithic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(2):318.e1-318.e8. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.011.
5. Gou M, Chen H, Kang J, Wang H. Antagonist enamel wear of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia posterior crowns in vivo: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):598-603. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.005.

6. Habib SR, Alotaibi A, Al Hazza N, Allam Y, AlGhazi M. Two-body wear behavior of human enamel versus monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, ceramometal and composite resin. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(1):23-31. doi:10.4047/jap.2019.11.1.23.
7. Yang SW, Kim JE, Shin Y, Shim JS, Kim JW. Enamel wear and aging of translucent zirconias: in vitro and clinical studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(3):417-425. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.016.
8. Fontolliet A, Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. Wear analysis and topographical properties of monolithic zirconia and CoCr against human enamel after polishing and glazing procedures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;105:103712. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103712.
9. Solá-Ruíz MF, Baima-Moscardó A, Selva-Otaolaurruchi E, Montiel-Company JM, Panadero RA, Fons-Badal C, et al. Wear in antagonist teeth produced by monolithic zirconia crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):997. doi:10.3390/jcm9040997.
10. Deval P, Tembhurne J, Gangurde A, Chauhan M, Jaiswal N, Tiwari DK. A clinical comparative evaluation of the wear of enamel antagonist to monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(6):744-751. doi:10.11607/ijp.6598.
11. Aljomard YRM, Altunok EÇ, Kara HB. Enamel wear against monolithic zirconia restorations: a meta-analysis and systematic review of in vitro studies. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34(3):473-489. doi:10.1111/jerd.12823.
12. Shaik K, Reddy KM, Shastry YM, Aditya SV, Babu PJ. Comparative evaluation of enamel wear against monolithic zirconia and layered zirconia after polishing and glazing: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(4):354-360. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_503_21.
13. Özkır SE, Bicer M, Deste G, Karakus E, Yilmaz B. Wear of monolithic zirconia against different CAD-CAM and indirect restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(3):505-511. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.023.
14. Badarneh A, Choi JJE, Lyons K, Waddell JN, Li KC. Wear behaviour of monolithic zirconia against human enamel: a literature review. Biotribology. 2022;32:100224. doi:10.1016/j.biotri.2022.100224.
15. León Velastegui M, Montiel-Company JM, Panadero RA, Fons-Badal C, Solá-Ruíz MF. Enamel wear of antagonist tooth caused by dental ceramics: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(21):6547. doi:10.3390/jcm11216547.
16. Salem RM, Taymour M, El Naggar G. Randomized controlled clinical trial of wear characteristics of CAD/CAM lithium silicate versus monolithic zirconia crowns. J Osseointegr. 2023;15(3):181-188. doi:10.23805/JO.2023.581.
17. Shah N, Nerkar H, Badwaik P, Ahuja B, Malu R, Bhanushali N. An evaluation of antagonist enamel wear opposing full-coverage zirconia crowns versus other ceramics full-coverage crowns and natural enamel: an umbrella review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024;24(3):217-224. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_32_24.
18. Mao Z, Beuer F, Hey J, Schmidt F, Sorensen JA, Prause E. Antagonist enamel tooth wear produced by different dental ceramic systems: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. J Dent. 2024;142:104832. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104832.
19. Woraganjanaboon P, Senawongse P, Anunmana C. A two-year clinical trial of enamel wear opposing 5Y-TZP and lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;133(3):747-755. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.009.
20. Kadokawa A, Suzuki S, Tanaka T. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(4):258-265.
21. Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, Hittelman EL. An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(5):345-353.
22. Habib SR, Alotaibi A, Al Hazza N, Allam Y, AlGhazi M. Two-body wear behavior of human enamel versus monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, ceramometal and composite resin. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;11(1):23-31. doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.1.23.
23. Lohbauer U, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, et al. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014;42:1586–1591.
24. Woraganjanaboon P, Anunmana C. 3D quantitative analysis and SEM qualitative analysis of natural antagonist enamel opposing CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia or lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns versus enamel opposing natural enamel. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2024;16(1):12.
25. Gou M, Chen H, Kang J, Wang H. Antagonist enamel wear of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia posterior crowns in vivo: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):598-603. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.005.