Advertisement

Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of posterior primary zirconia crowns

  • T. WaliaEmail author
  • C. Brigi
  • Abdel Rahman M. M. KhirAllah
Original Scientific Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

To compare the surface roughness of four commercially available posterior zirconia crowns on the occlusal surface and occlusal edge (buccal cusps) of first and second primary molars crowns.

Methods

Surface roughness of 40 posterior primary zirconia crowns was measured using a mechanical stylus profilometer. Ten mandibular right molar crowns, consisting of five first primary molar and five second primary molar crowns from four brands—Cheng, Sprig EZCrowns, NuSmile and Kinder Krowns were selected. Mean roughness, Ra and mean roughness depth, Rz was measured for all crowns on two selected surfaces, occlusal surface and buccal cusp tips. Data was evaluated by one way analysis of variance and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test at 0.05 level of significance.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed in the mean Ra and Rz values at both selected surfaces among four prefabricated paedodontic zirconia crowns. Kinder Krowns had higher Ra and Rz values compared to Cheng, Sprig EZCrowns and NuSmile. Roughness profile of Kinder Krowns also showed higher vertical scale values co-relating with higher Ra and Rz scores, irrespective of the measurements taken on relatively flat surfaces (occlusal edge) or deeper surface (occlusal pits and fissures).

Conclusions

Mechanically polished posterior primary zirconia crowns had a smoother surface profile than the combined polished-glazed primary zirconia crowns. Cheng Crowns had the lowest mean Ra and Rz values although not statistically significant from Sprig EZCrowns and Nu Smile. Kinder Krowns had the highest mean Ra and Rz scores than other crown groups.

Keywords

Surface roughness Zirconia crowns Primary tooth wear Paediatric dentistry 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

T. Walia declares that he has no conflict of interest. C. Brigi declares that she has no conflict of interest. Abdel Rahman M. M. KhirAllah declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study neither involved human subjects or teeth.

References

  1. Abdulhadi SB, Abdullah MM, Alaki SM, et al. Clinical evaluation between zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns in primary molars teeth. J Pediatr Dent. 2017;5:21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arecchi FT, Bertani D, Ciliberto S. A fast versatile optical profilometer. Opt Commun. 1979;31:263–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandeira MB, Queiroz IMS, Fernandes SKSC, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of monolithic zirconia after using different polishing kits. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr. 2017;17(1):e2984–e90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerci BB, Roman LS, Guariza-Filho O, et al. Dental enamel roughness with different acid etching times: atomic force microscopy study. Eur J Gen Dent. 2012;1(3):187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Kim MJ, Hsu SM, et al. Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent. 2017;68:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Field J, Waterhouse P, German M. Quantifying and qualifying surface changes on dental hard tissues in vitro. J Dent. 2010;38(3):182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hjerppe J, Närhi TO, Vallittu PK, et al. Surface roughness and the flexural and bend strength of zirconia after different surface treatment. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):577–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holsinger DM, Wells MH, Scarbecz M, et al. Clinical evaluation and parental satisfaction with pediatric zirconia anterior crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38(3):192–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, et al. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson-Harris D, Chiquet B, Flaitz C, et al. Wear of primary tooth enamel by ceramic materials. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38(7):519–22.Google Scholar
  12. Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, et al. A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2(3):111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khera SC, Carpenter CW, Vetter JD, et al. Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth and their fracture potential. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64(2):139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kontos L, Schille C, Schweizer E, et al. Influence of surface treatment on the wear of solid zirconia. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3–4):482–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, et al. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014;42(12):1586–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitov G, Heintze SD, Walz S, et al. Wear behavior of dental Y-TZP ceramic against natural enamel after different finishing procedures. Dent Mater. 2012;28(8):909–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, et al. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):358–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson GV, Osborne JW, Gale EN, et al. A three-year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 1980;47(6):414–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Oh WS, Delong R, Anusavice KJ. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):451–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pan Y, Wu G, Huang Z, et al. Effect of surface roughness on interlaminar peel and shear strength of CFRP/Mg laminates. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2017;79:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Passos SP, Torrealba Y, Major P, et al. In vitro wear behavior of zirconia opposing enamel: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Passos S, Torrealba Y, Linke B, et al. Wear evaluation of dental Y-TZP opposing human enamel. Dent Mater. 2016;32:5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandoval GC, Castanon GAM, Marin NP, et al. Surface roughness and hardness evaluation of some base metal alloys and denture base acrylics used for oral rehabilitation. J Mater Lett. 2015;144:100–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaefer DM, Carpenter M, Gady B, et al. Surface roughness and its influence on particle adhesion using atomic force techniques. J Adhes Sci Technol. 1995;9:1049–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J Dent Res. 2015;94(8):1027–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stober T, Bermejo Jl, Rammelsberg P, et al. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:314–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teicher U, Rosenbaum T, Nestler A, et al. Characterization of the surface roughness of milled carbon fiber reinforced plastic structures. Procedia CIRP. 2017;66:199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Theriot AL, Frey GN, Ontiveros JC, et al. Gloss and surface roughness of anterior pediatric zirconia crowns. J Dent Child. 2017;84(3):115–9.Google Scholar
  29. Walia T, Salami AA, Bashiri R, et al. A randomised controlled trial of three aesthetic full-coronal restorations in primary maxillary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2014;15(2):113–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walia T, Bashiri R, Alaghband F. Split mouth clinical study evaluating stainless steel crowns and primary zirconia crowns in pulp treated primary molars. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2015;25(S1):26.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson PR, Beynon AD. Mineralization differences between human deciduous and permanent enamel measured by quantitative microradiography. Arch Oral Biol. 1989;34(2):85–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yilbas Z, Hasmi MSJ. Surface roughness measurement using an optical system. J Mater Process Technol. 1999;88(1–3):10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, et al. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31(1):63–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Zinelis S, Eliades T, Eliades G, et al. Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials. Dent Mater. 2005;21(9):890–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Growth and Development, College of DentistryAjman UniversityAjmanUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.College of DentistryAjman UniversityAjmanUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Sama Al Shamkha Medical CenterAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations