A Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Wear Against Different Surface Finished Ceramics: An In Vitro Study

Background: An essential factor in the clinical acceptability of all ceramic restorations is the degree of tooth enamel wear. Wear of human enamel has been shown to produce traumatic occlusion, loss of vertical dimension, supra eruption of opposing teeth, periodontal disintegration, and temporomandibular dysfunction. To assess and compare enamel wear against two different ceramics (IPS Empress and Zirconia) and against three different ceramic surface treatments (autoglazed, overglazed, and polished). Methods: Zirconia and IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) ceramic samples totaled 30, of which 10 each underwent glaze, overglaze, or polishing with Diaglaze polishing paste. Using a horizontal pin on the disc machine, 60 mounted premolar tooth samples were produced and put through wear tests against ceramic discs. Prior to and following wear, the weight of the tooth samples was measured, and the results were then statistically analyzed using the student t-test, unpaired t-test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The qualitative data employed proportions, and the quantitative data used mean and standard deviation to express statistical information. The threshold of significance was set at 5% (α = 0.05). Results: The results for weight loss after 25,000 cycles for ceramic surfaces that had been overglazed were just a little bit greater than those for ceramic surfaces that had been autoglazed and polished. In each of the various subgroups, it was shown that the weight loss values obtained with polished ceramic after 25,000 cycles were significantly lower than those obtained with autoglazed and overglazed ceramic surfaces (P=0.001). When comparing the results produced by the two separate primary groups, IPS Empress and Zirconia, there was no statistically significant difference between the autoglazed, overglazed, and polished groups. While statistically significant difference was seen for each subgroup of IPS and Zirconia (p ≤ 0.01), particularly Zirconia glazed (1.227) with a highly significant p-value of 0.00. Conclusion: The findings contribute to the understanding of the potential clinical implications of different ceramic materials and surface finishes in restorative dentistry, offering valuable insights for practitioners in their treatment decisions. Further research and clinical observations may be needed to corroborate these findings and guide evidence-based practices in dental restorations.