ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluation of Hardness and Wear of Conventional and Transparent Zirconia Ceramics, Feldspathic Ceramic, Glaze, and Enamel.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wear resistance of CAD-CAM-milled PEEK, PEKK, and cobalt-chromium removable partial denture frameworks for implant-assisted removable partial dentures against zirconia crowns during simulated insertion/removal cycling in a mandibular Kennedy Class I model.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of three-body wear on the surface properties of different polymer-based CAD/CAM dental restorative and prosthetic materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Prosthetic Substrate, Cement, and Opaquer Liner on Color Matching of Translucent Zirconia- and Lithium-Based Ceramics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long-Term Chemical Solubility of 2.3Y-TZP Dental Ceramics.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Effect of Gamma Radiation on the Wear Potential of Hybrid Ceramic to Tooth Enamel.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the hardness, coefficient of friction, and wear experienced by four different ceramic samples: 3Y-TZP zirconium oxide ceramics-Zi-Ceramill Zi (Amman Girrbach), 5Y-PSZ transparent zirconium oxide ceramics-Zol-Ceramill Zolid (Amman Girrbach), Sak-feldspathic ceramics-Sakura Interaction (Elephant), and Glaze (Amman Girrbach). The Vickers hardness of the samples was measured. Friction tests ball-on-disc were performed between the discs of four ceramics and a zirconia ceramic ball, then a premolar tooth as a counter-sample. The mass loss and the friction coefficients of the ceramic samples were determined. The tooth counter-samples were 3D scanned, and enamel attrition depths and mass were measured. The following hardness values (HV1) were obtained: 1454 ± 46 HV1 for Zi, 1439 ± 62 HV1 for Zol, 491 ± 16 HV1 for Sak, 593 ± 16 HV1 for Glaze, and 372 ± 41 HV1 for enamel. The mass losses of the teeth in contact with ceramics were 0.1 mg for Zi, 0.1 mg for Zol, 5.5 mg for Sak, and 4 mg for Glaze. Conventional and transparent zirconium oxide ceramics are four times harder than enamel and three times harder than veneering ceramics. Zirconia ceramics exhibit lower wear and a more homogenous, smoother surface than the other ceramics. Tooth tissues are subject to greater attrition in contact with veneering ceramics than with polished zirconium oxide ceramics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.