<%BANNER%>

Microstructural and In Vivo Wear Analysis of All-Ceramic and Metal-Ceramic Crowns and Their Enamel Antagonists

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041017/00001

Material Information

Title: Microstructural and In Vivo Wear Analysis of All-Ceramic and Metal-Ceramic Crowns and Their Enamel Antagonists
Physical Description: 1 online resource (85 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Esquivel-Upshaw, Josephine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ceramics, clinical, prosthodontics, wear
Clinical Investigation (IDP) -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Medical Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MICROSTRUCTURAL AND IN VIVO ANALYSIS OF ALL-CERAMIC ANDMETAL-CERAMIC CROWNS AND THEIR ENEMAL ANTAGONISTS By Josephine F. Esquivel-Upshaw May 2010 Chair: Nabih Asal Major: Medical Sciences ? Clinical and Translational Science Objectives: (1) To characterize the microstructure (crystal size and volume fraction of crystal and glass phases) and physical properties (fracture toughness and hardness) of a single type of a veneering ceramic for metal ceramic prostheses (IPS d.SIGN) and two different all ceramic materials (IPS Eris and IPS e.max Press); (2) To test the hypothesis that microstructural characteristics of the ceramic do not influence the wear of ceramic on the opposing enamel; (3) To test the hypothesis that bite force does not correlate with wear of either a ceramic or of an enamel antagonist. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to analyze the wear of enamel against ceramic antagonist restorations. This single-blind pilot study involved a total of 31 patients (8 male, 23 female; age range 24-62 years) with 36 teeth that needed full coverage crowns opposing natural antagonist teeth. Thirty six (36) teeth were randomly assigned to receive either a metal-ceramic (IPS d.SIGN, Ivoclar Vivadent) or an all-ceramic crown (IPS Empress 2 with Eris or IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent). Maximum biting force was measured for each patient using a gnathodynamometer. A single unit crown was fabricated from either one of two all-ceramic materials or a metal-ceramic material. A vinyl polysiloxane impression was made of the maxillary and mandibular arches to record the occlusal surfaces of the cemented crowns, their antagonist teeth, and their contralateral teeth, after one week, one year, two years and three years, post cementation. Casts were produced in gypsum (GC Fujirock) and scanned using a 3D Laserscanner (Willytec, Germany). Maximum wear was calculated by superimposing the baseline one-week image with first, second and third year images and measuring the reduction in tooth height on the occlusal surface in microns. Results: The mean maximum wear for the ceramic crowns (C) was 47.8plus or minus6.0 ?m in year 1, 58.8 plus or minus 6.4 ?m in year 2 and 80.6 plus or minus 9.0 ?m in year 3. The mean maximum wear for the natural enamel antagonists (CA) was 59.4 plus or minus 5.2 ?m in year 1, 69.1 plus or minus 7.8 ?m in year 2 and 71.5 plus or minus 7.1 ?m in year 3. Teeth contralateral to the crowns (CC) exhibited a maximum wear of 42.4 plus or minus 5.3 ?m in year 1, 49.5 plus or minus 6.5 ?m in year 2 and 54.4 plus or minus 6.5 ?m in year 3. In contrast, teeth contralateral to the crown antagonists (CCA) exhibited a maximum wear of 66.9 plus or minus 12.8 ?m in year 1, 71.9 plus or minus 14.9 ?m in year 2 and 107.9 plus or minus 23.8 ?m in year 3. SAS PROC MIXED (? = 0.05) revealed no statistically significant difference in the mean maximum wear between the ceramic crowns, their natural antagonists, and their contralateral teeth; however, the contralateral crown antagonists displayed significantly greater wear compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001). No correlations were found between bite force, fracture toughness, and hardness with the amount of wear of ceramics or their enamel antagonists. Conclusion: These ceramics are promising as a long-term restorative material with in vivo wear rates within the range of normal enamel wear.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Josephine Esquivel-Upshaw.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Asal, Nabih R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041017:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041017/00001

Material Information

Title: Microstructural and In Vivo Wear Analysis of All-Ceramic and Metal-Ceramic Crowns and Their Enamel Antagonists
Physical Description: 1 online resource (85 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Esquivel-Upshaw, Josephine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ceramics, clinical, prosthodontics, wear
Clinical Investigation (IDP) -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Medical Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MICROSTRUCTURAL AND IN VIVO ANALYSIS OF ALL-CERAMIC ANDMETAL-CERAMIC CROWNS AND THEIR ENEMAL ANTAGONISTS By Josephine F. Esquivel-Upshaw May 2010 Chair: Nabih Asal Major: Medical Sciences ? Clinical and Translational Science Objectives: (1) To characterize the microstructure (crystal size and volume fraction of crystal and glass phases) and physical properties (fracture toughness and hardness) of a single type of a veneering ceramic for metal ceramic prostheses (IPS d.SIGN) and two different all ceramic materials (IPS Eris and IPS e.max Press); (2) To test the hypothesis that microstructural characteristics of the ceramic do not influence the wear of ceramic on the opposing enamel; (3) To test the hypothesis that bite force does not correlate with wear of either a ceramic or of an enamel antagonist. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to analyze the wear of enamel against ceramic antagonist restorations. This single-blind pilot study involved a total of 31 patients (8 male, 23 female; age range 24-62 years) with 36 teeth that needed full coverage crowns opposing natural antagonist teeth. Thirty six (36) teeth were randomly assigned to receive either a metal-ceramic (IPS d.SIGN, Ivoclar Vivadent) or an all-ceramic crown (IPS Empress 2 with Eris or IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent). Maximum biting force was measured for each patient using a gnathodynamometer. A single unit crown was fabricated from either one of two all-ceramic materials or a metal-ceramic material. A vinyl polysiloxane impression was made of the maxillary and mandibular arches to record the occlusal surfaces of the cemented crowns, their antagonist teeth, and their contralateral teeth, after one week, one year, two years and three years, post cementation. Casts were produced in gypsum (GC Fujirock) and scanned using a 3D Laserscanner (Willytec, Germany). Maximum wear was calculated by superimposing the baseline one-week image with first, second and third year images and measuring the reduction in tooth height on the occlusal surface in microns. Results: The mean maximum wear for the ceramic crowns (C) was 47.8plus or minus6.0 ?m in year 1, 58.8 plus or minus 6.4 ?m in year 2 and 80.6 plus or minus 9.0 ?m in year 3. The mean maximum wear for the natural enamel antagonists (CA) was 59.4 plus or minus 5.2 ?m in year 1, 69.1 plus or minus 7.8 ?m in year 2 and 71.5 plus or minus 7.1 ?m in year 3. Teeth contralateral to the crowns (CC) exhibited a maximum wear of 42.4 plus or minus 5.3 ?m in year 1, 49.5 plus or minus 6.5 ?m in year 2 and 54.4 plus or minus 6.5 ?m in year 3. In contrast, teeth contralateral to the crown antagonists (CCA) exhibited a maximum wear of 66.9 plus or minus 12.8 ?m in year 1, 71.9 plus or minus 14.9 ?m in year 2 and 107.9 plus or minus 23.8 ?m in year 3. SAS PROC MIXED (? = 0.05) revealed no statistically significant difference in the mean maximum wear between the ceramic crowns, their natural antagonists, and their contralateral teeth; however, the contralateral crown antagonists displayed significantly greater wear compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001). No correlations were found between bite force, fracture toughness, and hardness with the amount of wear of ceramics or their enamel antagonists. Conclusion: These ceramics are promising as a long-term restorative material with in vivo wear rates within the range of normal enamel wear.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Josephine Esquivel-Upshaw.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Asal, Nabih R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041017:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 MICROSTRUCTURAL AND IN VIVO WEAR ANALYSIS OF ALL CERAMIC AND METAL CERAMIC CROWNS AND THEIR ENAMEL ANTAGONISTS By JOSEPHINE F. ESQUIVEL UPSHAW A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PART IAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 20 10

PAGE 2

2 2010 Josephine F. Esquivel Upshaw

PAGE 3

3 To my parents who nurtured my incessant desire to be a lifetime learner; to my mento rs who helped me pursue my academic intere sts with zeal and encouragement; to my husband and children who persevered through the roughest of times, I am forever grateful

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Drs. Kenneth Anusavice and Buddy Clark for their mentoring th roughout my whole career in academia, Dr. Bill Rose for his assistance and friendship during this study, and Ivoclar Vivadent for their generous support of this project. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff of the Advanced Post g raduate Program in Clinical Investigation (APPCI) for steering me in the right direction. I thank Dr. Chuchai Anumana, Ben Lee and Allyson Barrett for their technical support and all the patients who persevered.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF F IGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 2 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ................................ ................................ ... 15 Wear of Ceramic on Enamel ................................ ................................ ................... 15 Hardness ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 Fractur e Toughness ................................ ................................ ......................... 16 Microstructural Analysis ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 Grain Size ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 Porosit y and Volume Fraction ................................ ................................ .......... 20 Image Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 24 Study Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 Study Intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 Analysis of Physical Properties and Microstructure of Ceramic Materials ............... 27 Sample Preparation for Physical Properties of Ceramic Materials .......................... 27 Fracture Toughness ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 Hardness ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 Elastic Modulus ................................ ................................ ................................ 29 Sample Preparation for Microstructural Analysis ................................ .................... 30 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 31 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32 Physical Properties of Ceramic ................................ ................................ ............... 32 Microstructural Analysis of Ceramic ................................ ................................ ........ 32 IPS d.SIGN ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 IPS Eris ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 34 IPS e.Max Press ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 Clinical Analysis of Wear ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 Statistical Correlations between Materials ................................ .............................. 38

PAGE 6

6 Image Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 39 5 DISCUSSION and C ONCLUSION ................................ ................................ .......... 72 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 72 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 77 APPENDIX : MANUFACTURER 'S RECOMMENDED FIRIN G SCHEDULES ............... 78 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 85

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLE S Table page 4 1 Fracture toughness, hardness and elastic modulus values for IPS d.SIGN and IPS Eris veneer ceramics and IPS e.Max Press ceramic ............................ 41 4 2 Semi quantitative analysis of elements found present in the three ceramic materials ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41 4 3 Mean wear for the different ceramics ................................ ................................ 42 A 1 IPS d.SIGN veneering porcelain for metal ceramic crowns ................................ 78 A 2 IPS Eris veneering porcelain for all ceramic crowns ................................ ........... 78 A 3 IPS e.Max Press core ceramic ................................ ................................ ........... 79

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 EDS spectrum depicting semi quantitative ana lysis of IPS d.SIGN sample etched for 15 seconds ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 4 2 Optical microscopy of d.SIGN veneer ceramic showing dispersion of leucite crystals with some scattered pores ................................ ................................ ..... 45 4 3 SEM images at 2K magnification ................................ ................................ ........ 47 4 4 Image J Analysis program masking process for IPS d.SIGN .............................. 49 4 5 EDS spectra of IPS Eris depicting elemental content ................................ ......... 52 4 6 Optical microscopy image of IPS Eris veneering ceramic ................................ .. 53 4 7 SEM images of IPS Eris veneer etched for 12 secs with 3% HF acid at 2K magnification ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 55 4 8 SEM image of IPS eris veneer etched for 12 seconds with 3% HF acid at 5K magnification ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 56 4 9 Image J analysis program masking process for IPS Eris ................................ .... 57 4 10 EDS spectrum of IPS e.Max Press specimen. ................................ ................... 58 4 11 Optical microscopy image of IPS e.Max Press core ceramic etched with 3% HF acid for 10, 12 and 15 seconds ................................ ................................ ..... 59 4 12 FESEM image of IPS e.Max P ress specimen etched for 12 seconds with 3% HF acid at 5K magnification showing needle like lithia disilicate crystals. .......... 61 4 13 FESEM image of IPS e.Max Press in 4 12 processed by Image J soft ware. ..... 61 4 14 Scanned images of lower left first molar with Eris veneer ................................ .. 62 4 15 Scanned images of a maxillary right first molar opposing a crown ..................... 63 4 16 Clinical pictures of the mandibular left first molar made from IPS Eris. ............ 64 4 17 SEM images of same m andibular molar made from IPS Eris at 10x magnification ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65 4 18 SEM images of same mandibular molar made from IPS Eris at 15x magnification focusing on mesiobuccal cusp wear. ................................ ............ 65

PAGE 9

9 4 19 SEM image of same mandibular molar made from IPS Eris at one year at 25x magnification ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 4 20 SEM images of same mandibular molar made o f IPS Eris at 100x magnification ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 7 4 21 Clinical images of maxillary left first molar enamel opposing Eris crown. ........... 68 4 22 SEM i mages of same maxillary molar opposi ng IPS Eris at10x magnification 69 4 23 SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eris tooth at 25x magnification. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 69 4 24 SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eris at 50x magnification .. 70 4 25 SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eris at 100x magnificat ion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 71

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MICROSTRUCTURAL AND IN VIVO ANALYSIS OF ALL CERAMIC ANDMETAL CERAMIC CROWNS AND THEIR ENEMAL ANTAGONISTS By Josephine F. Esquivel Upshaw May 2010 Chair: Nabih Asal Major: Medical Sciences Clinical and Translational Science Objectives: (1) To characterize the microstructure (crystal size and volume fraction of crystal and glass phases) and physical properties (fracture toughness and hardness) of a single type of a veneering ceramic for metal ceramic prostheses (IPS d.SIGN) and two different all ceramic materials (IPS Eris and IPS e.max Pr ess); (2) To test the hypothesis that microstructural characteristics of the ceramic do not influence the wear of ceramic on the opposing enamel; (3) To test the hypothesis that bite force does not correlate with wear of either a ceramic or of an enamel an tagonist. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to analyze the wear of enamel against ceramic antagonist restorations. This single blind pilot study involved a total of 31 patients (8 male, 23 female; age range 24 62 years) with 3 6 teeth that needed full coverage crowns opposing natural antagonist teeth. Thirty six (36) teeth were randomly assigned to receive either a metal ceramic (IPS d.SIGN, Ivoclar Vivadent) or an all ceramic crown (IPS Empress 2 with Eris or IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent). Maximum biting force was measured for each patient using a gnathodynamometer. A single unit crown was fabricated from either one of two all

PAGE 11

11 ceramic materials or a metal ceramic material. A vinyl polysiloxane impression was made of the m axillary and mandibular arches to record the occlusal surfaces of the cemented crowns, their antagonist teeth, and their contralateral teeth, after one week, one year, two years and three years, post cementation. Casts were produced in gypsum (GC Fujirock) and scanned using a 3D Laserscanner (Willytec, Germany). Maximum wear was calculated by superimposing the baseline one week image with first, second and third year images and measuring the reduction in tooth height on the occlusal surface in microns. Res ults: The mean maximum wear for the ceramic crowns (C) was 47.8 6.0 # m in year 1, 58.8 6.4 # m in year 2 and 80.6 9.0 # m in year 3. The mean maximum wear for the natural enamel antagonists (CA) was 59.4 5.2 # m in year 1, 69.1 7.8 # m in year 2 and 7 1.5 7.1 # m in year 3. Teeth contralateral to the crowns (CC) exhibited a maximum wear of 42.4 5.3 # m in year 1, 49.5 6.5 # m in year 2 and 54.4 6.5 # m in year 3. In contrast, teeth contralateral to the crown antagonists (CCA) exhibited a maximum wea r of 66.9 12.8 # m in year 1, 71.9 14.9 # m in year 2 and 107.9 23.8 # m in year 3. SAS PROC MIXED ( $ = 0.05) revealed no statistically significant difference in the mean maximum wear between the ceramic crowns, their natural antagonists, and their cont ralateral teeth; however, the contralateral crown antagonists displayed significantly greater wear compared with the other three groups (p<0.001). No correlations were found between bite force, fracture toughness, and hardness with the amount of wear of c eramics or their enamel antagonists. Conclusion: These ceramics are promising as a long term restorative material with in vivo wear rates within the range of normal enamel wear.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Crown and bridge prostheses are some of the most exp ensive restorative options for a dental patient receiving treatment. A single ceramic crown can cost between $800 and $3000 depending on materials, complexity of oral conditions (disease, occlusion, bone quality, tissue health), location in the dental arch and the dentist's training and experience. Unfortunately, the increased demand for esthetics led to the introduction of ceramic products for crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) well before the limitations of these products were fully explored. One of the major limitations of ceramics is their abrasiveness against natural antagonist tooth structure that leads to accelerated wear of enamel [1, 2] The mechanism and the quantification of wear continue to challe nge many dental scientists. Wear affects health in several ways, which include effects on supporting structures of the teeth, loss of vertical dimension, tooth sensitivity, esthetics and overall masticatory function [2] Furthermore, wear can lead to dysfunctions of the temporomandibular joint and the head with symptoms ranging from headache and pain to decreased function. Unfortunately, very little is understood of the wear patterns, wear occurrence and the amount of wear for any particular individual [3] Until rec ently, wear studies were conducted in vitro [1, 3 9] and showed no correlation with clinical occurrences in the mouth. Therefore, the mechanism of wear should be examined in vivo in relation to the microstructure of ceramic materials so that we can truly assess the effects of ceramics and wear on human health. In vitro wear studies require wear instruments that measure wear in only one or two dimensions. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and t he American Dental Association's (ADA) standard method for measuring wear is a pin on

PAGE 13

13 disk system where a disk of enamel is placed on a flat surface and a pin is fabricated from the restorative material being investigated [10] The disk is rotated and the amount of wear on the stylus is measured. Although the pin on disk is the simpl est method of determining the amount of wear, this test is not representative of the masticatory environment. Teeth are not flat and do not rotate on a 360 degree plane. Furthermore, wear is only measured in the vertical direction and does not reflect th e actual wear patterns in the mouth. The problem with these wear instruments is that none of the claims can be validated, as results cannot be compared with clinical wear. The most difficult and pressing issue involving the wear testing of ceramics is the method by which wear occurs based on masticatory movements. The jaw moves in different directions aside from vertical and circular motions. Chewing patterns are very complex and can vary from individual to individual depending on the existence of joint pathology, occlusion and muscle tone. These in vitro studies fail to take into account clinically relevant wear patterns that more completely model the masticatory system. To address the shortcomings of these in vitro studies, a 3D Laserscanner (Willytec Corp., Munich, Germany) was developed to measure wear clinically to an accuracy of 20 # m. The 3D Laserscanner [11 13] uses a laser beam that is projected through a special optic system onto the surface being stud ied. The reflection of the beam is observed at a defined angle by a high resolution CCD camera as per the principle of the light slit microscope. After scanning, the laserscanner software allows reference free 3 D superimposition of images and locates an d quantifies the differences between the two images, thereby measuring the amount of wear. This device also allows measurement of wear in three dimensions, thereby giving a more realistic view of

PAGE 14

14 the clinical occurrence of wear and the mechanism involved. To date, two in vivo [14, 15] wear studies have used this technology. While both studies are comprehensive, no correlation was reported between wear and the ceramic microscturcture or properties that might make ce ramic more or less abrasive. The ultimate goal is to create a fracture resistant, wear friendly ceramic that is esthetically pleasing. To accomplish this goal, we need to analyze the microstructure and physical properties of ceramics that affect wear of o pposing enamel. This clinical study allowed us to measure the amount of wear for both enamel and restorative material and investigate potential correlations with other health factors. This study will also assist us in the development of enamel friendly o r wear friendly materials to be used in restorative dentistry. The main objectives of this study are to characterize the microstructure (crystal size, volume fraction of crystal and glass phases, and interparticle spacing) of three ceramic materials and t o test the hypothesis that microstructure of ceramic does not affect the wear of opposing enamel. This study examined the following hypotheses: 1) A lower fracture toughness of glass and/or crystal phase in ceramics increases the wear damage of enamel, 2) A lower hardness in glass ceramics reduces the wear damage of enamel, 3) Smaller sized crystals in a glass ceramic veneer reduce the wear damage of enamel and 4) Maximum biting force does not correlate with maximum wear.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND SIGNI FICA NCE Wear of Ceramic on Enamel The abrasiveness of ceramic on enamel has been a cause of concern for clinicians and scientists alike. Numerous studies have shown that ceramic is one of the most abrasive restorative materials compared with amalgam, gold an d composite [5, 16 22] Other in vitro studies have also focused on the intrinsic nature of ceramic to determine if any factors affect enamel wear. These studies have examined physical as well as microstructural p roperties, which could contribute to the abrasive nature of ceramic. Unfortunately, there are no studies that have confirmed these findings clinically. Hardness and fracture toughness are the physical properties of ceramic that were assumed to affect the wear of enamel. Hardness Hardness is defined as the resistance to permanent deformation by an indenter. In vitro studies on various metals reported a direct correlation with the hardness of the metal and the amount of wear on enamel opposing the metal [23 25] Originally, scientists believed that since ceramics are among the hardest materials [26] they were often utilized for grinding because of their abrasiveness. Thus, the same direct correlation should naturally exist between ceramic hardness and enamel wear. However, studies have shown that the correlation of hardness and wear o f enamel may not apply to ceramics due to the brittleness and variability of ceramic hardness [27 29] Unlike metals, veneering ceramics have a non homogenous structure composed of a glassy matrix and crystals inte rspersed within this matrix. Since veneering ceramics may not have a homogenous structure, as exhibited by some metals, the wear rates of

PAGE 16

16 these ceramics and the wear of enamel by these ceramics may be quite variable. The hardness of the ceramic structure is therefore influenced by whether the indenter is situated within the glassy matrix or on the crystalline structure. The location of the indenter is difficult to predict and both the crystalline phase and glassy matrix phase respond differently to indent ation loads [26] The glassy matrix tends to initially undergo minimal plastic deformation before fracture, hence the brit tle nature of ceramics. The crystalline phase responds to indentation loads by having crystals dislocate within the glassy matrix [26] thereby registering higher hardness values. These factors make hardness values unreliable in predicting wear of these ceramics and their opposing enamel. Fracture Toughness Fracture toughness is a measure of the resistance of a material to c rack propagation. Fracture toughness is controlled by several factors, which include heat treatment and crystal volume fraction [30] Ceramics do not tolerate tensile stresses well because of their brittle nature. Tensile stresses are often introduced during mastication by oblique loading angles and the morphology of cusps and ridges on the teeth. Small cracks within the surface can propagate over time and cause a catastrophic failure of the ceramic restoration [31, 32] This failure, often exhibited as microfractures in the ceramic, can result in the loss of the glassy matrix on the surface of the ceramic, leaving the harder, sharper and rougher crystals to abrade the opp osing enamel surface, leading to increased wear. Compression loading, although better tolerated by ceramic, can also lead to subsurface tensile stresses, which also lead to fracture or chipping of ceramic surfaces [ 26, 33] These rough surfaces lead to increased wear of opposing enamel. One of the goals of ceramic technology is to

PAGE 17

17 develop ceramics with higher fracture toughness to enable increased resistance to crack propagation. Since the crack propagation may l ead to either large or small fracture surfaces, the consequences can be catastrophic for both the ceramic restoration and the opposing enamel. Because of the highly abrasive nature of ceramic restorations, several types of wear friendly ceramics have been introduced. These ceramics include low fusing porcelains or glass ceramics that consist mostly of the glass matrix [1, 34 37] The rationale for producing these materials is that the lower the crystalline content, the less abrasive the material. Since the low fusing ceramics consist mainly of a glass phase, they exhibit lower strength and fracture toughness than traditional ceramics with a higher crystal volume fraction. Interestingly, in vitro tests reveal that one of the low fusing ceramics displayed one of the highest wear rates of opposing enamel [34, 37] while others are no less abrasive than conventional porcelain [1, 5, 35, 36 ] The relationship between opposing enamel wear and fracture toughness of the abrading ceramics is still very unpredictable and clinical studies are needed to predict their behavior. Fracture toughness was measured using the indentation technique develo ped by Chantikul et al. [38] which does not require a measurement of the critical flaw size. Instead, a flaw size is assumed from the indentation load used to induce controlled flaws. This method eliminates some of the investigator related error from data collection, but this met hod is not accurate if environmentally assisted slow crack growth occurs before fracture. Since these measurements will only be used to confirm data prior to the clinical study, this method is considered sufficient.

PAGE 18

18 The strength values that were determ ined previously were used to determine fracture toughness using Equation 2 1, % & 4 / 3 3 / 1 8 / 1 P H E K f R V IC ( ) + / (2 1) where R V ( is a geometrical constant for a Vickers diamond, E is Young's modulus, H is the hardness, (calculated accordi ng Equation 2 2, (2 2) where P is the indentation load, is the angle between opposite diamond faces (136), and is the mean diagonal length of the indentation) is the fracture stress and P is the indentation load (4.9 or 9.8 N). The va lue of R V ( has been estimated to be 0.59 [38] Microstructural Analysis The microstructure of a material can be analyzed through multiple instrumental and optical analyses. Each method yields specific information that elucidates the behavior of the microstructu ral system as a whole [39] The microstructure and resulting potential material propert ies of a dental ceramic are determined in part by the elemental composition [40, 41] The material fabrication and processing variables (temperature, number of heat treatments, cooling rates, surface treatment cond itions, number of cooling cycles, etc.) all affect nucleation and crystallization [41] These variables affect the mechanical properties (strength, wear, hardness, toughness, viscoelasticity, fractal dimension), the chemical properties and effect s (dissolution, wear, toxicity), and the esthetic characteristics that mimic the natural appearance [42] as well as the color,

PAGE 19

19 opacity, translucency and fluorescence. In a given microstructure, the crys tals and their interfaces with the glass matrix of a glass ceramic have the potential of creating additional stresses [39] Consequently, the shape, size and crystal volume area play a significant role in the ceramic performance. The data and properties that will be determined to describe microstructure property relationships may include vo lume fraction (V v ), grain size, grain size distribution, intercrystal spacing, crystal phase stoichiometry, density, elastic modulus !"#$%&'())'*+)%,-.('%!/#$%0(123,+)%4-,5*3))%!067#%-*5%8',')(.9:%%;43)3%8-,-<3.3,)% 1'*.,(=>.3%.'%?@3A>,-@%).,3*B.4%!C#$%14-, -1.3,().(1%).,3*B.4%!C*'#$%DEF:FG%8,'=-=(@(.9%'?% failure Weibull modulus (m), and fractal dimensional increment (D*). The grain size and volume fraction has been characterized in a systematic manner in this study to critically analyze their effect on clin ical performance and survival. This process involves preparation of the samples through etching with different acid concentrations and times, image acquisition through optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, image enhancement, segmentation, im age processing and evaluation [43] For this study, we evaluated grain size and volume fraction in relation to wear of opposing enamel. Grain Size Grain size refers to the mean size of crystals within a given volume. Ceramic materials typically consist of a three dimensional assembly of individual grains, made of individual crystals in different crystal lattice orientations. Because of their three dimensional distributi on and the varying sizes of the grains, measurement of precise grain sizes is difficult. Grain size can be measured by the line fraction or area fraction methods of ASTM E112 [44] In the line fraction method, the statistical grain size is calculated from the number of grains or grain boundaries intersect ing a line of known

PAGE 20

20 length or circle of known circumference. In the area fraction method, the grain size is calculated from the number of grains within a known area. Grain size is typically measured by viewing planar or two dimensional sections through the three dimensional structure, polishing and etching the sample and eventually counting the number of grains that have been revealed in a unit area. The number of grains intercepted per unit area of the section N A is then transformed into an average grain s ize using D A =N A 1/2 ,where D A is the average grain size per unit area and N A is the number of grains per unit area [45] In both methods of measurement, the grain size is affected by secondary phases, porosity, preferred orientation exponential distribution o f sizes, and the presence of non equiaxed grains. In general, the smaller the grain size, the stronger and more dense the ceramic material. Grain size affects fracture toughness, flexural strength and Weibull modulus of the ceramic material. Grain size is affected by sintering temperatures, although the manufacturer's recommended firing schedules are also assumed to control the microstructure. Porosity and Volume Fraction Porosity refers to areas in which air has been incorporated. In ceramic materials, po rosity can indicate areas of weakness where fracture can propagate faster and without hindrance. In general, the more porous a material, the weaker the material. For this study, the focus was on porosities located at the interface between the ceramic vene er and the core material. The pressable ceramic being used in this study theoretically has less porosity overall compared with manually condensed ceramics. However, studies have shown that the porosity tends to concentrate at the interface of the ceramic a nd the veneer [46, 47] The location of the porosity at the interface, if

PAGE 21

21 present, can be detrimental to the bond between the ceramic core and veneer, and possibly, the clinical success of the prosthesis. Volume fraction refers to the concentration of a specific phase. This parameter is independent of scale, shape, and size distribution of the different phases in a ceramic. Measurement of the total volume fraction for crystalline phases can be accomplished through x ray diffraction methods [45] Local phase fractions can be determined from a planar sample of the material with regularly placed point s on a grid. The volume fraction is calculated by counting the number of points that intersect the phase being determined and dividing this number by the total number of points on the grid, giving the volume of the phase relative to the total volume of the sample. This method is clearly documented in ASTM E562 [48] Procedure E562 is a point frac tion method based on the stereological principle of point fraction being equal to volume fraction, i.e., P p = V v The content of a second phase in ceramics, such as carbide whiskers in an oxide matrix, is usually expressed as a mass fraction. Volume fractions can be converted to mass fractions if the density of each phase is known. Image analysis can measure po rosity, pore size distribution and volume fractions of secondary phases by ASTM E1245. As with grain size, porosity and second phase content have all been correlated with ceramic properties such as mecha nical strength, hardness toughness dielectric constant and many others. The wear of e namel is affected by the presence of crystals in the ceramic. Since the crystal phase is harder and more abrasive than the glass phase, the number of crystals, their morphology, and type as well as their distribution in the glass matrix, all affect their potential for wear of opposing enamel [18] In composite r estorations, crystal

PAGE 22

22 fillers were reduced in size to produce a wear friendly restorative material. The concept is that as the wear friendly matrix wears the sharper harder crystals are exposed, thereby creating a rough surface with asperities, which tende d to abrade the opposing enamel. As the crystals are reduced in size, the polishability of the composite improves as well as the abrasiveness [49] However, in vitro analysis revealed that ceramic may behave differently. As the glass matrix either dissolves or chips awa y, exposing crystals as well as a rougher surface, the larger crystals tend to be dislodged more easily as opposed to the smaller crystals that remain lodged in the glass matrix [50] The surface with the intact smal ler crystals could potentially be more abrasive to enamel than the surface with the remaining glass matrix. Since crystals also have higher hardness values, we can assume that a higher volume fraction of the crystal phase would translate into greater wear of enamel. However, other factors come into play such as the types of crystals and their morphology. Studies have shown that a glass ceramic with 45 50% volume fraction of crystals exhibits wear of enamel that is comparable to that caused by a gold allo y [18, 19] Most of the effects of grain size and volume fraction of crystals on the wear of opposing enamel are based on in vitro studies. As mentioned earlier, little or no success has been achieved in attempts to correlate these findings with clinical results. Image Analysis The continuing development of computer image analysis programs has facilitated the ability to distinguish features on and within three dimensional areas using a two dimensional image incorpo rating the principles of stereology. The accuracy of these program analyses relies upon the quality of the image, as well as the visual discretion of the operator.

PAGE 23

23 Selected material features such as crystals, pores, and fracture features may be isolated, examined, measured, and quantified based on representative fixed area samples. This process contributes to a better understanding of the material applications and effects. Several studies have confirmed the practicality and reliability of these image anal ysis programs [51 53] In this clinical research study, three ceramics were prepared and the microstructure analyzed by SEM. Resulting representative images were used in an image analysis program (Image J, NIH, Pu blic Domain) to quantify the volume fraction of crystals. Threshold adjustments of 8 bit images and area designations will be used to define ("mask") specific, visible, material characteristics. The "set measurements" menu has 20 possibilities for quant itative analysis. For purposes of this study, the quantitative analysis will include the area of distribution, individual crystal particle size by area, width, height and median size, and the volume fraction percentage of the selected crystals.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTE R 3 MATERIALS AND METHOD S Study Design A randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted to analyze the wear of enamel against ceramic antagonist restorations. This single blind pilot study involved a total of 31 patients with 36 teeth that needed ful l coverage crowns opposing natural antagonist teeth. Study Population Subjects were recruited through broadcast e mail and flyer advertisements. Subjects were selected based on the following criteria: 0 Subjects were over 18 years of age with good overall health. No contraindications to dental treatment were present. 0 Subjects were in good overall good dental health with no active tooth decay (caries) present and no periodontal disease. Periodontal pocket depths on all remaining teeth were not greater tha n 4 mm. 0 Subjects had no existing temporomandibular disorder, (e.g. clicking, popping, pain on opening) or parafunctional habits (e.g. bruxism, clenching). 0 Subjects needed a crown on either a second premolar, first molar or second molar on any arch. Abut ment teeth were restorable and had a crown root ratio of at least 1:1. Abutment teeth had a full complement of opposing non restored or minimally restored natural teeth. Minimally restored means nothing beyond a Class II amalgam restoration. Opposing ar ch did not have a full coverage restoration or a partial denture. Contralateral tooth was present. 0 Subjects exhibited good oral hygiene and compliance with oral hygiene instructions as determined by the amount of plaque present in teeth. 0 Subjects had a no rmal flow of saliva. Subjects with any medical pathologies limiting salivary volume or chronic intake of medications that minimized flow of saliva were excluded from the study. 0 Subjects were willing to pay $200 for the laboratory cost of the crown and wer e compliant with yearly appointments.

PAGE 25

25 Study Intervention Thirty six (36) teeth, on 31 enrolled subjects (no patient was allowed to have more than 2 study crowns), that needed full coverage crowns were randomly assigned to receive either a metal ceramic (IP S d.SIGN, Ivoclar Vivadent) or an all ceramic crown (IPS Empress 2 with IPS Eris veneer ceramic or IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent). A random number table was formulated to facilitate assignment of teeth. As each patient progressed in treatment, the rand om number table was used to determine what type of crown material they would receive. Patients were treated at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) Dental School between 2002 and 2007. The UTHSCSA Institutional Review Bo ard approved the research protocol for treating human subjects. All subjects were required to sign an informed consent form prior to initiating the study. The following baseline data were collected: 0 General medical history and physical examination 0 Primary casts made with vinylpolysiloxane impression material 0 Bite force measurement in newtons using a gnathodynamometer 0 Periodontal pocket depths of abutment teeth 0 Periapical radiographs of abutment teeth Two investigators prepared all the teeth to receive crowns. Integrity (Dentsply, USA) provisional material was used to fabricate provisionals. Vinylpolysiloxane impression material (Affinis, Coltene Whaledent) was used for final impressions. Master casts were mounted in centric relation. A single unit crow n was fabricated from either one of two all ceramic materials or a metal ceramic material. Occlusal surface thickness of the finished crowns was measured at baseline. Adjustments to the crown were made with a high speed handpiece and a fine diamond bur. Prior to cementation, all adjusted surfaces were

PAGE 26

26 polished or glazed. All crowns were cemented with a dual cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent). A baseline examination was performed one week after cementation to ensure that the patient was co mfortable with the crown and no further adjustments were needed. When no further adjustments were necessary, a vinylpolysiloxane impression was made of the maxillary and mandibular arches to record the occlusal surfaces of the cemented crown and its antag onist tooth. The post cementation casts were poured with a white gypsum material (GC Fujirock) to enable optimal scanned image contrast. A 3D Laserscanner (Willytec, Germany) was used to scan along the x, y and z axes of the casts. The subjects were aske d to return yearly after crown cementation for the next three years. Vinylpolysiloxane impressions were made of maxillary and mandibular arches and poured with Type IV stone at the six month period. Gypsum casts of the antagonist teeth and the crowns were scanned using the 3D Laserscanner. The baseline image was superimposed with the one, two and three year images and the amount of wear in three dimensions was calculated. Wear was quantified as maximum wear referring to loss in height and maximum volume we ar referring to volumetric loss of tooth structure. Teeth with fabricated ceramic crowns were labeled as C, the crown's natural enamel antagonist as CA, the tooth contralateral to the crown as CC, and the natural tooth opposing the contralateral tooth as CCA. A standard deviation greater than 25% in the scans was considered unacceptable. Casts were either re scanned to obtain a lower standard deviation or discarded. This procedure was repeated every year for the next two years. An SEM analysis of repre sentative wear areas (defined as

PAGE 27

27 wear exceeding 100 m for the first year) for both the crown and enamel antagonist were made to visualize wear patterns. Analysis of Physical Properties and Microstructure of Ceramic Materials Three ceramic materials were u sed for this study. First, IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent) is a core ceramic used to support posterior crowns as well as bridges in areas of greater masticatory load. The microstructure of IPS e.max Press consists of Li 2 Si 2 O 5 lithia disilicate crystal s (approximately 70%), which are embedded in a glassy matrix [46, 54, 55] Lithia disilicate, the main crystal phase, consists of needle like crystals measuring 3 to 6 m in length. The flexural strength reported by the manufacturers for this core material ranges from 300 to 460 MPa depending on the test method. The fracture toughness ranges from 2.5 to 3.0 MPam 1/2 Second, IPS Eris is a veneering porcelain designed for all ceramic core materials [56] This ceramic is primarily used to veneer IPS Empress 2 and consists mainly of a glass matrix. IPS Eris consists of fluorapatite crystals that are widely spaced and are embedded in a glass matrix. The flexural st rength for IPS Eris varies between 100 and125 MPa and fracture toughness ranges from 0.5 to 0.8 MPam 1/2 Lastly, IPS d.SIGN glass ceramic is used for veneering metal crowns and bridges and is composed of phases containing calcium phosphate. These phases are predominantly needle like fluorapatite, which are provided in two uniform sizes [57] The flexural strength and fracture toughness for IPS d.SIGN are very similar to those of IPS Eris, which are typical veneering ceramics. Sample Preparation for Physical Properties of Ceramic Materials Monolithic specim ens of the veneer porcelain for PFM (IPS d.SIGN), the veneer porcelain for all ceramic crowns (IPS Eris) and the ceramic core (IPS e.Max Press) were subjected to in vitro analyses to confirm their physical properties and

PAGE 28

28 microstructure and to determine any correlation with the clinical results of wear. The metal ceramic veneer porcelain served as the control group. Fracture Toughness We conducted separate fracture toughness testing for this study to obtain values independent from those reported by the manuf acturer. As mentioned earlier, the fracture toughness was measured using the indentation technique developed by Chantikul et al. [38] which does not require a measurement of the critical flaw size. Three bars of each ceramic material measuring 5 mm x 5 mm x 25 mm were fired accor ding to manufacturer's instructions and polished. Indentation cracks were induced at the center of polished specimens using a Vickers indenter at a load of 9.8 N. This indent load was selected such that the cracks were formed at the tip of the Vickers in denter without excessive cracking or chipping. Crack lengths were approximately 2 3 times longer than the size of the diamond indenter. Specimens were subjected to four point flexure with a 20.0 mm lower span and a 6.7 mm upper span using an Instron univer sal testing machine (Model 5500 R) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure occurred. Failure loads for the ba r specimens were obtained, and the flexural ?-(@>,3%).,3))3)%!C f ) were calculated using Equation 3 1, (3 1) where P is the failure load, x is the distance between the inner and outer supports, w is the specimen width and t is the specimen t hickness. Hardness Hardness is defined as a resistance to indentation. A microhardness tester (Model MO Tukon Microhardness Tester, Wilson Instruments Inc., Binghamton, NY) with a

PAGE 29

29 Vickers diamond was used to measure the hardness of one specimen from each group of ceramic at three different areas. Hardness specimens were finished using a metal bonded diamond abrasive disk. The surface to be indented was polished to a 1 m finish using an alumina slurry. The specimens were indented at four locations unde r loads of 4.9 N (IPS d.SIGN and IPS Eris) and 9.81 N (IPS e.Max Press). The dimensions of the indentation diagonals were measured using an optical microscope with a filar eyepiece. The hardness values were calculated according to Equation 2 2. Elastic Modulus Elastic modulus was calculated, using three specimens each of the two veneer ceramics and the core porcelain, from the density and the velocity of sound through the material. The velocity of sound was measured using an ultrasonic pulse apparatus ( Ultima 5100, Nuson Inc., Boalsburg, PA). Shear and longitudinal waves were generated using 5 MHz piezoelectric transducers (SC25 5 and WC25 5, Ultran Laboratories, Inc., Boalsburg, PA). The transducers were coupled to the specimens using honey and glycer in for shear and longitudinal waves, respectively. The electronic delay in the pulse apparatus was subtracted from the time of flight before calculating the velocity of sound. Poisson's ratios were calculated using Expression 3 2 (3 2 ) where vS is the shear velocity and vL is the longitudinal velocity. Young's modulus was calculated using Expression 3 3 (3 3 )

PAGE 30

30 where is the density. Sample Preparation for Microstructural Analysis Three discs of each ceramic material were made from a mold that was16 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm in height. Each disc was fired according to manufacturer's instructions (refer to Appendix 1 for ceramic firing schedules) and fired twice to simulate in vivo crown fabrication. Each disc was polished to a 1 m polish and etched with freshly made 3% hydrofluoric acid for 10, 12 and 15 seconds. Optical microscopy: All the discs were examined under optical microscopy at 40x magnification using an optical microscope (Omni Met Modular Imaging System, Buehler, Lake B luff, IL, USA). Different microstructural characteristics were noted for comparison with scanning electron microscopy images and to determine sites for further examination at higher magnifications. Scanning electron microscopy: All the discs were prepared with a gold coating for viewing under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Two sites for each ceramic material for each etching time were examined using the SEM to determine specific characteristics noted during the optical microscope evaluation. A se mi quantitative analysis of the elements within the ceramic was made through energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS). Image analysis: SEM images were analyzed using the Image J Image Processing and Analysis Program (Image J) (National Institutes of Health web site : http ://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/index.html ). This program allowed us to determine volume fraction as well as crystal size through a series of masking procedures that enabled us to isolate specific crystals. Image J can display, edit, analyze, process, save, and print

PAGE 31

31 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit images. The program can read many image formats including TIFF, PNG, GIF, JPEG, BMP, DICOM, FITS, as well as ra w formats. Statistical Analysis The amount of wear in microns was determined along the x, y and z axes. An initial examination of the data was performed to determine whether a standard statistical model could be used. SAS PROC MIXED was deemed to be the mo st suitable tool for data analysis. We also considered the fracture toughness, hardness, and biting force as covariates in the model. Due to its large variance, CCA was compared with C, CA, and CC as pairs under the unequal variance assumption. Any presen ce of cracks or fractures in the crowns was recorded.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Physical Properties of Ceramic We obtained mean values for fracture toughness, elastic modulus and hardness for all three ceramics used in this study. Fracture toughness ranged from 1.04 MPam for IPS d.SIGN veneering ceramic, and 0.74 MPam for IPS Eris veneering ceramic to 2.35 MPam for IPS e.Max Press core ceramic. Elastic modulus values were 69 GPa for IPS d.SIGN, 65 GPa for IPS Eris and 104 GPa for IPS e.Max Press. Hardn ess values were 5.67 GPa for IPS d.SIGN, 5.50 GPa for IPS Eris and 5.65 GPa for IPS e.Max Press (Table 4 1). Microstructural Analysis of Ceramic All three ceramic materials used in the study were subjected to microstructural analysis. The two veneering c eramics, IPS d.SIGN and IPS Eris, and one core ceramic, IPS e.Max Press, were formed into discs, fired twice according to manufacturer's instructions, etched, and examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Semi quantitative analysis was perform ed during scanning electron microscopy to determine the approximate percentage or distribution of elements within the material (Table 4 2). All three ceramic materials showed a predominance of silica followed by potassium. Silicon is the most predominant element in IPS e.Max Press core with some potassium and zinc. The two veneers, IPS Eris and IPS d.SIGN demonstrate approximately 50% silicon content with the remaining bulk distributed between potassium and aluminum. Other trace elements include calcium sodium, zinc, zirconia, phosphorus and cerium.

PAGE 33

33 IPS d.SIGN As mentioned earlier, IPS d.SIGN is used as a veneering ceramic for metal substructures. IPS d.SIGN is composed of fluorapatite ( Ca 5 (PO 4 ) 3 F) and leucite ( KAlSi 2 O 6 ) crystals embedded in a glass c eramic phase. Energy dispersive spectrometry reveals that IPS d.SIGN is composed of 52.1% Si, 16.0% K, 11.9% Al, 3.7% Zn, 3.2% Zr, 2.7% Ba, 2.4% Ca and 2.7% Ce (Table 4 2, Figure 4 1). Trace elements of titanium and phosphorus were also noted. Optical mi croscopy is unremarkable with a dispersion of possible crystals and pores throughout the specimen (Figure 4 2). The specimens were etched for 10, 12 and 15 seconds. The 12 second etching time showed the most characterization on the surface. SEM analysis of IPS d.SIGN revealed islands of leucite crystals embedded in a glassy phase and a dispersion of needle like fluorapatite crystals. The fluorapatite crystals were most apparent in the samples of IPS d.SIGN that received 15 seconds of etching with 3% hydro fluoric acid (Figure 4 3). Note that the fluorapatite crystals were most apparent in the backscatter mode of the SEM. Also, note the microcracking of the sample, which could represent possible over etching of the sample for 15 seconds. The Image J analy sis program yielded the volume fraction of crystals and crystal size. Through a masking process, different crystal phases were isolated to enable the program to measure volume fraction as well as crystal size (Figure 4 4). Using a representative image of the ceramic, the Image J program was able, through a series of contrasts, to mask different areas to highlight materials of interest. The program compute d the volum e percent of crystals over a specified area within the ceramic. This process resulted in a mean crystal volume fraction (Vv) of 0.6 for fluorapatite over an area of 15.92 # m 2 (derived from Figure 4 4d) and 10.8 for leucite over an area of 285.98

PAGE 34

34 # m 2 (Figure 4 4b). Crystal or grain size analysis was more difficult because of the inhomogeneity of the material. As seen in the SEM images (Figure 4 3), IPS d.SIGN has agglomerations of leucite crystals, which vary in size, along with scattered flourapatite crystals with different orientations (captured in cross section and lengthwise). These agglo merations were difficult to differentiate from single crystals. Thus, the I mage J program analysis a range of crystal sizes from very high to very low. The average value for grain size for fluorapatite crystals is 0.034 0.030 # m 2 (median of 0.027 # m 2 ) w ith a range of 0.014 0.27 # m 2 The average crystal size of leucite is 76.1 90.0 # m 2 (median 44 # m 2 ) with a range of 10 516 # m 2 As stated earlier, a precise value of crystal size is impractical because of crystal agglomerations and variations in or ientations. This challenge is evidenced by the wide range, as well as the high standard deviations of the grain size. IPS Eris IPS Eris is another veneering ceramic designed to veneer ceramic cores. This veneering ceramic has a high crystalline content and was designed to bond with the Empress 2 system. EDS reveal ed that IPS Eris is composed of 46% silicon, 23% potassium, 15% aluminum, 5% zirconium, 2% titanium, zinc and cerium. Trace elements of sodium and phosphorus were also noted (Table 4 1, Figur e 4 5). Optical microscopy reveal ed porosities as well as surface scratches. There were some areas that exhibit ed geometric shapes, which could be an indication of preferential etching (Figure 4 6). Separate EDS analyses were performed inside and outside of the geometric areas to determine if any differences existed in content (Figure 4 5). A presence of aluminum was observed outside of the geometric area, which could

PAGE 35

35 account for the resistance to acid etching. SEM analysis of an IPS Eris sample etched for 12 seconds show ed fluorapatite crystals that are uniformly dispersed throughout the glass matrix (Figure 4 7). Although EDS d id not show the presence of fluoride, which fails to confirm the presence of fluorapatite, these images represent areas where the fluorapatite may have been etched away. Note the geometric shape evident at 2K magnification in Figure 4 7 This occurrence may have been caused by the preferential etching of some areas of the sample, where the etching occurred primarily along the g eometric shape. Further magnification of the sample reveal ed fluorapatite crystal locations (Figure 4 8). The fluorapatite crystals appear ed to be distributed uniformly within the glass matrix. In the secondary mode, the fluorapatite crystals appear ed t o have been etched away by the acid. The backscatter mode reveal ed reflections of where the fluorapatite crystals used to be in relation to one another and the glassy matrix. The volume fractions of the apatite crystals were derived through the same mask ing technique employed by the Image J analysis program. Although the fluoraptite crystals were not demonstrated as being present in the EDS analysis through the absence of fluoride, we believe that these images represent their locations. The Vv for apati te crystals is 35.1% over an area of 37.84 # m 2 (Figure 4 9). Crystal size determination was also a challenge with IPS Eris due to the overlapping of the fluorapatite crystals. A drawing tool was used in the program to outline representative crystals to o btain a reasonable value for grain size. The average grain size for flouorapatite crystals is 0.25 0.16 # m 2 (median 0.20 # m 2 ) and a range of 0.06 0.56 # m 2

PAGE 36

36 IPS e.Max Press IPS e.Max Press is a core ceramic used primarily as a ceramic substructure in s ingle crowns or in up to three unit fixed partial dentures. This core ceramic consists of lithia disilicate crystals embedded in a glassy matrix. The EDS analysis of the elemental content of IPS e.Max Press was 76% silicon, 9% potassium, 6% zinc, 4% ceri um, 2% phosphorus and aluminum, and trace elements of sodium and zirconium (Table 4 1, Figure 4 10). Optical microscopy was unable to reveal sufficient microstructural detail. There appear ed to be lithia disilicate crystals as well as porosities scatter ed uniformly throughout the structure (Figure 4 11). The optical images were insensitive to etching times. SEM analysis of an IPS e.Max Press sample etched for 12 seconds with 3% HF acid did not reveal a very clear image. Field emission SEM (FESEM) was f urther conducted to reveal lithia disilicate crystals dispersed in a glass matrix (Figure 4 12). Volume fraction values for lithia disilicate crystals were 54.5, 43.3, 41.7 over an area of 490.7 # m 2 These values were derived from the same FESEM image (F igure 4 13) although the masking and the analysis were performed at three different times. These differences in values might indicate the semi quantitative nature of the image analysis processand should be approached with caution. The same limitations we re found with IPS e.Max Press in regard to grain size determination. Although the crystals seemed homogenously distributed, their boundaries were difficult to determine. We employed the same technique of using a drawing tool to demarcate the edges of the crystals to obtain reasonable grain sizes. The average grain size for lithia disilicate was 253.6 248.5 # m 2 (median 233.5 # m 2 ) and a range of 14 966 # m 2

PAGE 37

37 Clinical Analysis of Wear Thirty one subjects were enrolled for this study and 36 teeth were ran domly assigned to receive full coverage restorations. Of the 31 subjects, 8 were male and 23 were female with ages ranging from 24 62 years old. After one year, one subject with a single crown dropped out of the study. Also, one subject experienced a cro wn fracture after 582 days in service. The subject admitted to bruxing because of numerous stressors in her life. The subject was advised to replace the crown with a full gold crown and was dismissed from the study. As a result, 29 patients and 34 teeth were analyzed for the second year of the study. The mean maximum wear was calculated by superimposing scanned images from first, second, and third year recalls with the baseline images (Figure 4 14). Note the wear on the buccal surface of the tooth in Figure 4 14b after one year of use in the mouth. The mean maximum wear for the ceramic crowns (C) was 47.8 6.0 # m in year 1, 58.8 6.4 # m in year 2 and 80.6 9.0 # m in year 3. The mean maximum wear for the natural enamel antagonists (CA) was 59.4 5.2 # m in year 1, 69.1 7.8 # m in year 2 and 71.5 7.1 # m in year 3. Another superimposed image of enamel wear after one year is shown in Figure 4 15 with the differential image showing the most wear areas in red. In contrast, teeth contralateral to the c rowns (CC) exhibited a maximum wear of 42.4 5.3 # m in year 1, 49.5 6.5 # m in year 2 and 54.4 6.5 # m in year 3. Teeth contralateral to the crown antagonists (CCA) exhibited a maximum wear of 66.9 12.8 # m in year 1, 71.9 14.9 # m in year 2 and 107.9 23.8 # m in year 3 (Table 4 3). Mean volume wear was also calculated in cubic microns and are highlighted in blue on the same table as maximum wear (Table 4 3).

PAGE 38

38 Statistical Correlations between Materials Three types of ceramic materials were used for th is study including IPS d.SIGN, a veneering ceramic for metal ceramic crowns, IPS Eris, a veneering ceramic for all ceramic crowns and IPS e.Max Press, a core ceramic. No correlation was found between the amount of wear and bite force (p=0.15), fracture t oughness (p=0.12), hardness (p=0.25) and type of ceramic material (p=0.09). Analysis showed significant differences in wear between the teeth in relation to their location in the mouth (p=0.04) and between years (p<0.02) (Table 4 3). Further analysis show e d that CC wore less on the average than C and C less than CA. Also, year 2 showed increased wear over year 1. When CCA was analyzed alone, the time and type of ceramic material were not significant for wear (both p>0.25), but biting force showed a strong e ffect on wear (p<0.0001). CCA wore slightly more than C and CA (p=0.05), but significantly more than CC (p=0.0006). Although the type of material did not reach the 0.05 statistical significance level (p=0.09), IPS e.max Press may prove to be a more wear r esistant material due to the microstructure with densely packed crystals and a higher crystal volume fraction. Analysis of the mean volumetric wear showed similar results except that IPS e.max Press showed a significant difference in wear resistance comp ared with the other two types of ceramic (p=0.006). No wear differences were noted in the location of the mouth (p=0.92), type of porcelain (p=0.63), annual effect (p=0.38), or biting force effects (p=0.21). However, there was a significant increase in vol ume from year 2 to year 3 (p=0.005). Note that the statistical significance cannot be solely judged by the values in the tables. Two factors, biting force and patients, are not reflected. When the patient factors are considered, the between crown standard error is usually smaller, similar to

PAGE 39

39 the reduction of variance in the paired t test. For example, there is a reduction in mean volume for CC from year 2 to year 3 in Table 4 3 This occurrence seems counter intuitive. The reason for the increase in volume is that several of the higher volume loss patients had been dropped. When the patient's identity is considered into the statistical analysis, this contradiction vanishes. Image Analysis SEM image analysis of representative wear areas were taken of crowns and enamel antagonist teeth which exceeded 100 # m of wear during the first year. The first sample is a crown on the lower left first molar made from Eris veneer with a wear rate of 158.7 # m on the buccal surface. The first set of images (Figure 4 16) sho ws clinical photographs of the crown one week after cementation and at the one year recall. Note the rough surface on the buccal cusps after one year of use in the mouth. Additional SEM images (Figure s 4 17 to 4 20) are from 10x to 100x magnification, co mparing the baseline images with the first year images and highlighting the area of wear on the buccal cusps. Note that there appear to be ridges on the 25x image (Figure 4 19) that could indicate one or more fractures on the surface of the restoration. While the wear on this crown was not the highest during the first year, the wear is significant because the patient actually complained of roughness on the surface of the crown. The second sample is representative of enamel antagonist wear on the maxil lary left first molar opposing a crown on the lower left made from Eris veneer with a wear rate of 141.3 # m. The clinical image (Figure 4 21) shows the maxillary first molar during the initial placement of the opposing crown at one year. No obvious wear c an be noted clinically. SEM images range from 10x to 100x magnification (Figures 4 22 to 4 25).

PAGE 40

40 These images highlight the surface roughening at the wear facets where the wear occurred. The wear rates on the crown and tooth opposing these representative samples did not show any significant wear.

PAGE 41

41 Table 4 1 Fracture toughness, hardness and elastic modulus values for IPS d.SIGN and IPS Eris veneer ceramics and IPS e.Max Press ceramic Ceramic Fracture t oughness (MPam ) Hardness (GPa) Elastic m odulus (GPa) IPS d.SIGN 1.04 5.67 69 IPS Eris 0.74 5.50 65 IPS e.Max Press 2.35 5.65 104 Table 4 2. Semi quantitative analysis of elements found present in the three ceramic materials SEM EDS Material IPS d.SIGN IPS Eris IPS e.max Press Element Basis Na/K 5.1 0.6 0.3* Al/K 11.9 15.3 1.9 Si/K 52.1 46.4 75.9 P/K 0.1 0.5* 2.2 K/K 16.0 23.2 8.8 Ca/K 2.4 4.4 Ti/K 0.9 1.7 Zn/K 3.7 1.5* 6.4 Zr/L 3.2 4.9 0.5* Ba/L 2.7 Ce/L 1.9 1.6 4.0 Atomic Basis Na/K 7.0 0.9 0.5 Al/K 14.1 18.4 2.2 Si/K 59.2 53.6 84.1 P/K 0.1* 0.5* 2.2 K/K 13.1 19.2 7.0 Ca/K 1.9 3.5 Ti/K 0.6 1.1 Zn/K 1.8 0.8* 3.1 Zr/L 1.1 1.7 0.2* Ba/L 0.6 Ce/L 0.4 0.4 0.9 Analysis conditions: *= <2 Sigma System Resolution = 62 eV Quantitative method: ZAF; (d.SIGN and Eri s 3 iterations); (Press Core 2 iterations) Analyzed all elements and normalized results

PAGE 42

4 2 Table 4 3. Mean wear for the different ceramics Ceramic Crown (C) Crown antagonist (CA) Crown contralateral (CC) Crown contralateral antagonist (CCA) Overall Year 1 Mean maximum wear* IPS d.SIGN 56.4 14.3 55.5 6.99 45.1 5.55 73.4 24.2 57.2 6.89 Mean volume wear** IPS d.SIGN 0.97 0.22 0.90 0.10 0.97 0.17 1.09 0.14 0.98 0.08 Mean maximum wear IPS Eris 52.6 8.99 57.7 8.78 47.8 17.3 36.9 3.81 48.9 4.78 Mean volume wear IPS Eris 1.01 0.25 0.92 0.12 0.75 0.25 0.67 0.05 0.85 0.09 Mean maximum wear IPS e.max Press 36.5 4.25 51.3 12.2 34.1 4.55 96.2 30.8 52.9 8.24 (37) Mean volume wear IPS e.max Press 0.69 0.06 0.79 0.12 0.71 0.10 1.01 0.14 0.79 0.05 Mean maximum wear Combined 47.8 6.01 59.4 5.2 42.4 5.3 66.9 12.8 Mean volume wear Combined 0.89 0.11 0.87 0.06 0.83 0.10 0.93 0.09 Year 2 Mean maxi mum wear IPS d.SIGN 56.9 13.3 78.9 14.5 49.7 5.51 85.7 33.7 66.8 8.77 Mean volume wear IPS d.SIGN 0.87 0.19 1.00 0.12 1.15 0.30 1.11 0.24 1.03 0.11 Mean maximum wear IPS Eris 78.9 9.86 58.0 10.2 65.7 22.2 59.2 21.7 66.0 7.53 Mean volume wear IPS Eris 1.25 0.14 0.92 0.16 1.12 0.50 0.86 0.17 1.04 0.11 Mean maximum wear IPS e.max Press 41.1 4.57 67.1 14.7 35.3 6.81 68.5 17.6 52.8 6.12 Mean volume wear IPS e.max Press 0.74 0.09 0.7 4 0.10 0.50 0.08 0.76 0.10 0.70 0.05 Mean maximum wear Combined 58.8 6.44 69.1 7.83 49.5 6.47 71.9 14.9 Mean volume wear Combined 0.94 0.10 0.90 0.08 0.95 0.14 0.93 0.11

PAGE 43

43 Table 3 1. Continued Ceramic Crown (C) Cro wn antagonist (CA) Crown contralateral (CC) Crown contralateral antagonist (CCA) Overall Year 3 Mean maximum wear IPS d.SIGN 87.6 15.9 73.7 9.36 53.8 7.68 108.7 41.6 81.0 11.1 Mean volume wear IPS d.SIGN 1.48 0.20 1.10 0.10 0.93 0.15 1.44 0.28 1.24 0.10 Mean maximum wear IPS Eris 95.2 16.3 73.7 16.0 54.6 21.1 116.2 43.3 87.3 12.3 Mean volume wear IPS Eris 1.31 0.17 1.02 0.20 0.67 0.23 1.35 0.35 1.13 0.12 Mean maximum wear IPS e.max Press 6 7.8 11.5 66.5 16.1 54.8 14.5 98.1 36.4 70.2 9.58 Mean volume wear IPS e.max Press 1.06 0.12 0.80 0.09 0.80 0.22 0.81 0.13 0.87 0.07 Mean maximum wear Combined 80.6 9.04 71.5 7.10 54.4 6.52 107.9 23.8 Mean volume wear Combined 1.32 0.13 0.99 0.07 0.84 0.11 1.26 0.17 Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 show progressive wear. Mean maximum wear shown in microns **Mean volume wear shown in cubic microns

PAGE 44

44 Figure 4 1. EDS spectrum depicting semi quantitative anal ysis of IPS d.SIGN sample etched for 15 seconds.

PAGE 45

45 A B Figure 4 2. Optical microscopy of d.SIGN veneer ceramic showing dispersion of leucite crystals with some scattered pores. A) d.SIGN ceramic etched at 10 seconds. B) d.SIGN ceram ic etched for 12 seconds. C) d.SIGN ceramic etched for 15 seconds.

PAGE 46

46 C Figure 4 2 Continued

PAGE 47

47 A B Figure 4 3. SEM images at 2K magnification. A) backscattered electron mode. B) secondary electronmode of IPS d.SIGN specimen etched for 15 secs with 3% HF acid. Fluorapatite crystals are clearly seen in the backscatter mode as white dots and needle like structures. C) SEM analysis at 5K magnification, backscatter mode, of the microstructure of IPS d.SIGN with sample etched for 15 seconds with 3% HF acid. Note needle like projections depicting fluorapatite crystals (blue arrow). Circular projections represent the same crystals at cross section (orange arrow). Leucite crystals are depicted as clusters throughout the glassy mat rix (yellow arrow). D) SEM of same specimen in secondary mode. Note that fluorapatite crystals are not very distinct in this mode even though it is of the same sample area as the SEM image in 4 3A.

PAGE 48

48 C D Figure 4 3 Continued

PAGE 49

49 A Figure 4 4. Image J Analysis program masking process for IPS d.SIGN. A) SEM image of IPS d.SIGN at 2000K etched for 10 seconds with 3% HF, showing flourapatite crystals and clusters of leucite crystals. B) Same SEM image as in 4 4A, this tim e, highlighting the leucite crystals in red, further differentiating them from the fluorapatite crystals. C) The same image using different masking technique, this time highlighting leucite crystals in black, practically obliterating or "masking" the fluor apatite crystals. D) Same SEM image as 4 4A, this time masking the leucite crystals and highlighting the flourapatite crystals in the image. E) Same image as 4 4, highlighting fluorapatite but with a different contrast.

PAGE 50

50 B C Figure 4 4 Continued

PAGE 51

51 D E Figure 4 4 Continued

PAGE 52

52 A B Figure 4 5 EDS spectra of IPS Eris depicting elemental content. A) EDS spectrum of IPS Eris located outside geometric shape. This area shows the presence of alumina, whi ch could account for the resistance to etching. B) EDS spectrum of IPS Eris located within the geometric shape. This area seems to show a higher silica content.

PAGE 53

53 A B Figure 4 6. Optical microscopy image of IPS Eris ve neering ceramic. A) IPS Eris ceramic etched for 10 seconds. B) IPS Eris ceramic etched for 12 seconds. Note the geometric shapes scattered throughout the area of the image which could signify preferential etching in these areas. C) IPS Eris ceramic etche d for 15 seconds.

PAGE 54

54 C Figure 4 6 Continued

PAGE 55

55 A B Figure 4 7. SEM images of IPS Eris veneer etched for 12 secs with 3% HF acid at 2K magnification. A) SEM image sample in backscatter mode. B) SEM image sample in second ary electron mode.

PAGE 56

56 A B Figure 4 8. SEM image of IPS eris veneer etched for 12 seconds with 3% HF acid at 5K magnification. These images are taken inside the geometric areas, which are believed to have the preferential etching. A ) Sample in the backscatter electron mode. B) Sample in the secondary electron mode.

PAGE 57

57 A B Figure 4 9 Image J analysis program masking process for IPS Eris. A) SEM image of IPS Eris at 5000x magnification, sample etch ed for 12 secs with 3% HF acid. This image was taken inside one of the geometric shapes throughout the ceramic that possibly showed preferential etching. B) Same SEM image in Fig. 4 9 A masked to highlight crystal content in the image to enable calculat ion of Vv of apatite crystals at 35.1%.

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 10. EDS spectrum of IPS e.Max Press specimen

PAGE 59

59 A B Figure 4 11. Optical microscopy image of IPS e.Max Press core ceramic etched with 3% HF acid for 10, 12 and 15 seconds. A) Optical microscopy image of IPS e.Max Press etched for 10 seconds. B) Optical microscopy image of IPS e.Max Press etched for 12 seconds. C) Optical microscopy image of IPS e.Max Press etched for 15 seconds.

PAGE 60

60 C Figure 4.11. Continued

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 12. FESEM image of IPS e.Max Press specimen etched for 12 seconds with 3% HF acid at 5K magnification showing needle like lithia disilicate crystals. Figure 4 13. FESEM image of IPS e.Max Press in Figure 4 12 processed by Image J software.

PAGE 62

62 A B C Figure 4 14 Scanned images of lower left first molar with Eris veneer. A) B aseline after cementation B) R ecall image after one year C) S uperimposed image where red shows the most wear. Note the wear circumscribed in yellow in Fi g. 4 14 B and the relationship with the red areas in Fig. 4 14 C

PAGE 63

63 A B C Figure 4 15. Scanned images of a maxillary right first molar opposing a crown. A) At baseline. B) After one year. C) Superimposed differential image. Note wear on buccal and lingual cusps after one year shown in Fig 4 15C in red.

PAGE 64

64 A B Figure 4 16 Clinical pictures of the mandibular left first molar made from IPS Eris A) A t baseline B) A t one year recall. Note excessive roughnes s on buccal surface with possible veneer fracture with yellow arrow.

PAGE 65

65 A B Figure 4 17. SEM images of same mandibular molar made from IPS Eris at 10x magnification. A) B aseline B) At o ne year recall. A B Figure 4 18 SEM images of same mandibular molar made from IPS Eris at 15x magnification focusing on mesiobuccal cusp wear A) B aseline B) At o ne year recall.

PAGE 66

66 A B C D Figure 4 19 SEM image of same mandibular molar made from IPS Er i s at one year at 25x magnification. A) Focused on me siobuccal cusp B) Focused on mesiobuccal cusp fro m another angle N otice the ledge on the middle of the image demarcating where the wear occurred C) Same image showing wavy patterns originating from the left side and ending on the marked ledge D) Sa me image showing another angle of the wavy ridges, possibly indicating a site of fracture somewhere on the surface.

PAGE 67

67 A B Figure 4 20. SEM images of same mandibular molar made of IPS Eris at 100x magnification. A) Baseline. B) At o ne year recall. Not e roughened surface of 4 20 B

PAGE 68

68 A B Figure 4 21 Clinical images of maxillary left first molar enamel opposing Eris crown. A) Baseline. B) At o ne year recall.

PAGE 69

69 A B Figure 4 22. SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eri s at10x magnification A) Baseline B) At o ne year. A B Figure 4 23 SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eris tooth at 25x magnification. A) B aseline B) At o ne year. Note definition on the wear facet after one year.

PAGE 70

70 A B C Figure 4 24. SEM images of same maxillary molar opposing IPS Eris at 50x magnification. A) B aseline B) O ne year C) B ackscatter emission mode for one year

PAGE 71

71 A B C Figure 4 25. SEM images of same maxill ary molar opposing IPS Eris at 100x magnification A) At baseline. B) One year C) O ne year image using backscatter emission mode.

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USION Discussion This study is unique because it analyze d wear of enamel opposing ceramic in an in vivo setting. Ceramic can be a very abrasive material and can cause accelerated wear of the opposing teeth. Previous research studies analyzed wear of ceramic in vitro To date only one study has been published showing that the normal yearly wear between enamel versus enamel was 88.3 m in vivo [58] In contrast, the results of our study indicate that ceramic wear is comparable to the enamel antagonist wear with a mean annual wear of 48.7 m for ceramic and 54.9 m for enamel. The wear values also fall below the normal yearly wear value of 88.3 m between enamel versus enamel surface. These results are a good indication that this formulation of ceramics offer s a less abrasive restorative option. There is considerable debate over which value of wear is more significant in a clinical setting. The 3D Laserscanner delive rs two sets of data, one for volumetric wear and the other for maximum wear. Volumetric wear accounts for the total volume wear in a given area, in this case, the occlusal surface of the tooth. While this value may be of interest, volume wear may be misle ading and therefore not significant. Take the example of a mandibular first molar, which probably has one of the largest occlusal surface areas of approximately 56 mm 2 [59] A given volumetric wear value of 250 # m 3 may seem large but when divided over the surface area, the value amounts to a wear value of 4.46 x 10 6 # m wear per # m 2 over a year, which seems negligible. However a maximum wear of 250 # m over one particular area could prove to be very harmful and detrimental to the orofacial system. The two in vivo studies [14, 15] which examined

PAGE 73

73 wear using a 3D Laserscanner reported wea r as a volumetric loss. We believe that maximum wear is the more significant value that needs to be reported. This study is also unique because we analyze d the wear on the contralateral side as the control enamel versus enamel wear. Unexpectedly, the cr own contralateral antagonist teeth demonstrated the greatest amount of wear out of the four groups (crown, crown antagonist, crown contralateral tooth and crown contralateral antagonist). While crossover studies are expedient, the results of these studies should be viewed very carefully as the experimental side may "contaminate" or unduly affect the control side and alter the results. In this case, a three body wear could be the cause of increased wear on the CCA group. This increased wear may be due to small glass particles, which are introduced in the mouth as the ceramic wears down. These particles can act as a third body foreign object, causing accelerated wear of the contralateral teeth. Another interesting finding is that CCA demonstrated the most variability in wear. We can postulate that the possibility of masticatory posturing could exist, whereby the subject either consciously or unconsciously favors chewing on the opposite side of the crown a lthough this theory fails to explain why overall t he crown contralateral teeth showed the least wear. The significant effect of bite force upon separate analysis of CCA wear indicates that bite force may not be distributed uniformly across the entire occlusal surface. Future studies need to develop a dev ice that could measure bite force for the left and right areas of the mouth to determine if posturing does exist to compensate for the new prosthesis. This study is also comprehensive in analyzing the different characteristics of ceramics and how they rel ate to wear of ceramic and opposing enamel. To date, this

PAGE 74

74 study is the only one that has analyzed the microstructure of the ceramic materials used in a clinical study to correlate the results of clinical wear. The two veneering ceramics and one core cera mic used in this study exhibited no significant difference in their wear of the opposing enamel despite notable differences in their microstructure and physical properties. The physical properties were also different in that IPS e.Max Press exhibited the h ighest fracture toughness of 2.35 MPam and, although not statistically significant, possibly the most resistance to wear. The ceramics have similar elemental content with a predominance of silicon although they all have different crystal structures a nd grain sizes. The microstructural findings are consistent with other studies, which analyzed at the microstructure of the same materials [54, 60, 61] In our analyses, we confirmed the presence of lithia disili cate crystals in IPS e.Max Press through the presence of silicon and lithium in EDS as well as through a comparison of SEM images to previous studies. Also, there was confirmation of the fluorapatite crystals we believe to be present in IPS Eris. In the s tudy by Holand et al ., [54] they described the presence of apatite gl ass ceramic crystals which are seen as white geometric shaped islands in SEM images. These are consistent with the geometric shapes we saw on SEM images, which we believe to be areas that are more susceptible to etching. Next, there are speci H1%*><=3,)%'?%I3,9% H*3@9%5()83,)35%-8-.(.3%1,9).-@)%.4-.%4-I3 been precipitated in the glassy matrix of the glass ceramic" [54] again describing the fine crystals we saw on higher magnification. Although there was no evidence of fluoride in EDS spectra, the presence of potassium, calcium and phosphorus support the cla im that there are apatite crystals in the ceramic. The study further describes the possibility of these apatite crystals being etched away

PAGE 75

75 from the surface, leaving deficits or craters where the crystals existed, which is what we believe we viewed for fluo rapatite. In another study, the evolution of IPS d.SIGN was described [60] The microstructure of the veneering ceramic was outlined in detail pertaining to the controlled nucleation of both the apatite and leucite crystals. This study note d that leucite existed in single crystals although twinning was observed. In our study, we noted an abundance of leucite agglomerations, which is probably more significant than twinning. This observation could be related to differences in firing temperat ure and heat treatments, which could have affected crystal nucleation and other properties [50, 62] There were several challenges that were encountered during the microstructural analyses of the ceramics. Firs t, the lack of homogenous distribution of the crystal phase made it difficult to analyze crystal size with certainty. As such, the crystal size values were not included in the statistical model. Leucite in particular tends to have different sized agglome rations and the boundaries of single crystal structures were difficult to detect. Second, there was predominant overlapping of crystals, particularly with the lithia disilicate crystals. Since the overlapping may add considerable strength to the ceramic as evidenced by the high fracture toughness, this characteristic also added a greater challenge to grain size analysis. One of the original hypotheses of our study was to determine whether a larger interparticle spacing reduced the wear damage on opposing enamel. Due to the same challenges that were encountered for grain size determination, we decided to include an alternative hypothesis for hardness and not include crystal size values in the statistical model. We could have alternatively use d the

PAGE 76

76 values for volume fraction of crystals but this would only have told us whether a higher crystal content has any effect on the wear of opposing enamel. Although not statistically significant, the results also show that IPS e.max Press is a more wear resistan t material. This finding could be explained by the fact that IPS e.Max Press also has the highest fracture toughness of the three ceramics used in this study. Since the fracture toughness is the intrinsic property that measures the resistance to crack pro pagation in ceramic, fractures on the surface leaving harder crystals and rougher surfaces are minimized. Interestingly, the higher fracture toughness did not show any difference in the wear of the opposing enamel. The lithium disilicate microstructure, which is densely packed and overlapping, also accounts for the increased strength and higher fracture toughness of this material. The SEM image of one of the representative crowns made of IPS Eris showed one of the roughest surfaces of all the crowns in t he study. This finding was made even more apparent by the patient who described the roughness with her tongue as like "gritty sandpaper". Although not significant in terms of enamel wear, IPS Eris had the lowest fracture toughness among the three ceramic s in the study. The next phase of this study will examine the surface of this particular crown through fractographic analysis to detect fractures that may have occurred on the surface, which could explain the excessive roughness. Due to the lower fractur e toughness of IPS Eris, the possibility of crack propagation is higher, which could lead to catastrophic failures or fractures of the restoration. Another factor to be examined is the chemical solubility of the glassy phase. A high solubility of the gla ssy phase can also contribute to roughness

PAGE 77

77 of the surface through dissolution of the ceramic, possibly increasing wear of the opposing enamel. IPS e.max Press has a higher fracture toughness and densely packed crystals [63, 64] This study shows that IPS e.max Press as potentially being more wear resistant than other ceramics. However, no other factors mentioned above contributed to increased wear of the opposing enamel or of the other areas in the mouth. Conclusi on This study shows that no correlation exists between bite force and the amount of wear although the effect of bite force is more clearly seen when the wear of the contralateral antagonist teeth is examined separately. Additionally, there is no signific ant difference in the wear of opposing enamel by two veneering ceramics and one core ceramic despite the differences in microstructure, fracture toughness and hardness of the ceramic restorations opposing them. However, microstructure and fracture toughne ss do influence the wear resistance of the ceramic material as evidenced by the higher wear resistance of IPS e.Max Press.

PAGE 78

78 APPENDIX MANUFACTURER'S RECOM MENDED FIRING SCHEDU LES For all tables: 0 T emperatures given in centigrade 0 T = Top temperature 0 B= Idle te mperature 0 t= Temperature rise rate 0 H = Hold t ime 0 V1 = Vacuum on 0 V2 = Vacuum off A 1. IPS d.SIGN veneering porcelain for metal ceramic crowns T B S t H V 1 V 2 First and s econd o paque f iring 900 403 6 min 60 1min 450 899 Shoulder Firing 890 403 6 min 60 1 min 450 889 First d entin and i ncisal f iring 870 403 10 min 40 1 min 450 869 Corrective f iring 870 403 4 min 60 1 min 450 869 Add o n m aterial Firing 750 403 4 min 60 1 min 450 749 Glaze firing without glazing paste 870 403 4 min 60 0.5 1 min 450 869 G laze firing with glazing paste 830 403 4 min 60 1 2 min 450 829 A 2. IPS Eris veneering porcelain for all ceramic crowns T B S t H V 1 V 2 Foundation f iring 765 403 6 min 55 1min 450 764 Dentin, i ncisal and i mpulse m aterial f iring 765 403 6 min 55 2 min 450 764 Universal s hade/ s tains 735 403 4 min 55 1 min 450 842 Universal g laze 735 403 6 min 55 1 2 min 450 734 Corrective f iring 710 403 4 min 55 1 min 450 709

PAGE 79

79 A 3. IPS e.Max Press core ceramic T B S t H V 1 V 2 Press parameters 930 700 6 min 60 25 m in 500 930

PAGE 80

80 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Clelland, N.L., et al., Wear of enamel opposing low fusing and conventional ceramic restorative materials. J Prosthodont, 2001. 10 (1): p. 8 15. 2. Okeson, J.P., Etiology and treatment of occlusal path osis and associated facial pain. J Prosthet Dent, 1981. 45 (2): p. 199 204. 3. Heintze, S.D., et al., Wear of ceramic and antagonist -a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater, 2008. 24 (4): p. 433 49. 4. Abe, Y., et al., An in vitr o wear study of posterior denture tooth materials on human enamel. J Oral Rehabil, 2001. 28 (5): p. 407 12. 5. Clelland, N.L., et al., Relative wear of enamel opposing low fusing dental porcelain. J Prosthodont, 2003. 12 (3): p. 168 75. 6. Elmaria, A., et al ., An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J Prosthet Dent, 2006. 96 (5): p. 345 53. 7. Heintze, S.D., et al., A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental material s. Dent Mater, 2006. 22 (11): p. 1051 62. 8. Kadokawa, A., S. Suzuki, and T. Tanaka, Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel. J Prosthet Dent, 2006. 96 (4): p. 258 65. 9. Olivera, A.B. and M.M. Marques, Esthetic restorative ma terials and opposing enamel wear. Oper Dent, 2008. 33 (3): p. 332 7. 10. Suzuki, S., S.H. Suzuki, and C.F. Cox, Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel. J Am Dent Assoc, 1996. 127 (1): p. 74 80. 11. Mehl, A. et al., A new optical 3 D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res, 1997. 76 (11): p. 1799 807. 12. Folwaczny, M., et al., Determination of changes on tooth colored cervical restorations in vivo using a three dimensional laser scanning device. Eur J O ral Sci, 2000. 108 (3): p. 233 8. 13. Perry, R., et al., Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three dimensional laser digitizer. J Am Dent Assoc, 2000. 131 (10): p. 1472 7. 14. Suputtamongkol, K., et al., Clinical performance and wea r characteristics of veneered lithia disilicate based ceramic crowns. Dent Mater, 2008. 24 (5): p. 667 73.

PAGE 81

81 15. Etman, M.K., M. Woolford, and S. Dunne, Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont, 2008. 21 (3): p. 245 52. 16. Jacobi, R., H.T. Shillingburg, Jr., and M.G. Duncanson, Jr., A comparison of the abrasiveness of six ceramic surfaces and gold. J Prosthet Dent, 1991. 66 (3): p. 303 9. 17. Jagger, D.C. and A. Harrison, An in vitro investigation into the wear effect s of selected restorative materials on dentine. J Oral Rehabil, 1995. 22 (5): p. 349 54. 18. DeLong, R., et al., The wear of enamel when opposed by ceramic systems. Dent Mater, 1989. 5 (4): p. 266 71. 19. Delong, R., M.R. Pintado, and W.H. Douglas, The wear of enamel opposing shaded ceramic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 1992. 68 (1): p. 42 8. 20. Hudson, J.D., G.R. Goldstein, and M. Georgescu, Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent, 1995. 74 (6) : p. 647 54. 21. Monasky, G.E. and D.F. Taylor, Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. J Prosthet Dent, 1971. 25 (3): p. 299 306. 22. Mahalick, J.A., F.J. Knap, and E.J. Weiter, Occusal wear in prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc, 1971. 82 (1): p. 1 54 9. 23. Archard, J., Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces. J Appl Phys, 1953. 24 : p. 981 988. 24. Attin, T., et al., Correlation of microhardness and wear in differently eroded bovine dental enamel. Arch Oral Biol, 1997. 42 (3): p. 243 50. 25. Oh, W.S., R Delong, and K.J. Anusavice, Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent, 2002. 87 (4): p. 451 9. 26. William J. Callister, J., Materials Science and Engineering An Introduction 2007, York, PA: John Wiley and Sons. 721. 27. DeLong, R., et al., The wear of dental porcelain in an artificial mouth. Dent Mater, 1986. 2 (5): p. 214 9. 28. Dahl, B.L. and G. Oilo, In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials. Quintessence Int, 1994. 25 (8): p. 561 5. 29. Seghi, R.R., S.F. R osenstiel, and P. Bauer, Abrasion of human enamel by different dental ceramics in vitro. J Dent Res, 1991. 70 (3): p. 221 5.

PAGE 82

82 30. Oh, W.S., N.Z. Zhang, and K.J. Anusavice, Effect of heat treatment on fracture toughness K(IC) and microstructure of a fluorcana site based glass ceramic. J Prosthodont, 2007. 16 (6): p. 439 44. 31. Mecholsky, J.J., Jr., Fracture mechanics principles. Dent Mater, 1995. 11 (2): p. 111 2. 32. Mecholsky, J.J., Jr., Fractography: determining the sites of fracture initiation. Dent Mater, 1 995. 11 (2): p. 113 6. 33. Ekfeldt, A. and G. Oilo, Occlusal contact wear of prosthodontic materials. An in vivo study. Acta Odontol Scand, 1988. 46 (3): p. 159 69. 34. al Hiyasat, A.S., W.P. Saunders, and G.M. Smith, Three body wear associated with three ce ramics and enamel. J Prosthet Dent, 1999. 82 (4): p. 476 81. 35. Metzler, K.T., et al., In vitro investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent, 1999. 81 (3): p. 356 64. 36. Imai, Y., S. Suzuki, and S. Fukushima, Enamel wear o f modified porcelains. Am J Dent, 2000. 13 (6): p. 315 23. 37. Magne, P., et al., Wear of enamel and veneering ceramics after laboratory and chairside finishing procedures. J Prosthet Dent, 1999. 82 (6): p. 669 79. 38. Chantikul P, Anstis, GR., Lawn, BR, Mar shall, DB, A critical evaluation of indentation techniques for measuring fracture toughness: II strength method. J Am Ceram Soc 1981. 64 : p. 539 543. 39. Parsell, D., The optimization of glass ceramic heat treatment schedules in Materials Science Engineer ing 1993, University of Florida: Gainesville. p. 75. 40. Cesar, P.F., et al., Correlation between fracture toughness and leucite content in dental porcelains. J Dent, 2005. 33 (9): p. 721 9. 41. Denry, I.L. and J.A. Holloway, Microstructural and crystallog raphic surface changes after grinding zirconia based dental ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2006. 76 (2): p. 440 8. 42. Schweiger M, F.S., Cramer von Clausbruch S, Holand W, Rheinberger V, Microstructure and properties of a composite system fo r dental applications composed of glass ceramics in the SiO2 LiO ZrO2 P2O5 system and ZrO2 ceramic (TZP). J Mater Sci, 1999. 43 : p. 4563 4572. 43. Friel, J.J., Practical Guide to Image Analysis 2000, Materials Park, OH: ASM International. 290.

PAGE 83

83 44. Standar d, E. A. Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size in ASTM International 2004. West Conshohocken, PA. 45. Kaplan, D.B.a.W., Microstructural Characterization of Materials second ed. 2008, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 46. Albakry, M., M. Guazzato, and M.V. Swain, Influence of hot pressing on the microstructure and fracture toughness of two pressable dental glass ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2004. 71 (1): p. 99 107. 47. Albakry, M., M. Guazzato, and M.V. Swain, Biaxial flexural strength and microstructure changes of two recycled pressable glass ceramics. J Prosthodont, 2004. 13 (3): p. 141 9. 48. Standard, E. A., Standard Test Method for Determining Volume Fraction by Systematic Manual Point Count 20 08, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA 2008. 49. Say EC, C.A., Nobecourt A, Ersoy M, Guleryuz C, Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials. ( 0361 7734 (Print)). 50. Denry, I.L. and J.A. Holloway, Effect of crystallization hea t treatment on the microstructure and biaxial strength of fluorrichterite glass ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2007. 80 (2): p. 454 9. 51. Hefter J, H.A., Mahoney ME, Harris JE, Microstructural characterization of structural ceramics using im age processing and analysis J Am Ceram Soc, 1993. 76 (6): p. 1551 1557. 52. Chinn, R., Grain sizes of ceramics by automatic image analysis. J Am Ceram Soc, 1994. 77 (2): p. 589 592. 53. Thomas Hche, C.M., Issak Avramov, Christian Rssel, Wolfgang Heerrdegen, Microstructure of SiO AlO CaO PO KO F Glass Ceramics. 1. Needlelike versus isometric morphology of apatite crystals. Chem Mater, 2001. 13 (4): p. 1312 1319. 54. Holand, W., et al., A comparison of the microstructure and properties of the IPS Empress 2 and t he IPS Empress glass ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res, 2000. 53 (4): p. 297 303. 55. Chung, K.H., et al., The effects of repeated heat pressing on properties of pressable glass ceramics. J Oral Rehabil, 2008. 56. Oh, S.C., et al., Strength and microstructure of IPS Empress 2 glass ceramic after different treatments. Int J Prosthodont, 2000. 13 (6): p. 468 72.

PAGE 84

84 57. Cattell, M.J., et al., Flexural strength optimisation of a leucite reinforced glass ceramic. Dent Mater, 2001. 17 (1): p. 21 33. 58. Lambrechts, P., Brae m, M., Vuylsteke Wauters, M., Vanherle, G., Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 1989 68 : p. 1752 1754. 59. Satish Chandra, S.C., Sourabh Chandra, Textbook of Dental and Oral Anatomy Physilogy and Occlusion 2007, Noida: Gopsons Papers Ltd 60. Holand, W., et al., Needle like apatite leucite glass ceramic as a base material for the veneering of metal restorations in dentistry. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2000. 11 (1): p. 11 7. 61. Holand, W.a.B.G., Glass Ceramic Technology 2002, Westerville, OH: The American Ceramic Society. 372. 62. Szabo I, N.B., Volksch G, Holand W, Structure, chemical durability and microhardness of glass ceramics containing apatite and leucite cyrstals. Journl of Non Crystalline Solids 2000. 272 : p. 191 199. 63. Guazzato, M. et al., Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all ceramic materials. Part I. Pressable and alumina glass infiltrated ceramics. Dent Mater, 2004. 20 (5): p. 441 8. 64. Guess, P.C., C.F. Stappert, and J.R. Strub, [Preliminary cli nical results of a prospective study of IPS e.max Press and Cerec ProCAD partial coverage crowns]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 2006. 116 (5): p. 493 500.

PAGE 85

85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Josephine Esquivel Upshaw, D.M.D., M.S. is an a ssociate p rofessor in the Depa rtment of Prosthodontics at the University of Florida College of Dentistry. Dr. Esquivel received her D.M.D. degree from the University of the Philippines in 1991. She went on to specialize in the area of p rosthodontics at Northwestern University Dental School in Chicago, IL and completed her residency program and her master s degree in 1994. She came to the University of Florida as a c linical f ellow in the Department of Prosthodontics in 1994 and became an a ssistant p rofessor in 1995. After being promo ted and tenured in 2001 to Associate Professor, Dr. Esquivel moved to the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio in San Antonio, TX to teach in the g eneral d entistry d epartment. She returned to the University of Florida in 2006. Her re search focuses on ceramics and prosthesis survival for which she received K23 funding in May 2008 and a master's degree in medical sciences with a concentration in clinical and translational science in May 2010.