ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Wear of Natural Teeth and Crown Materials Opposing Metal, Metal-Ceramic, and Zirconia Surfaces: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The increasing demand for aesthetic dentistry has led to widespread use of zirconia and metal-ceramic restorations. Although zirconia demonstrates superior mechanical properties and fracture resistance, the wear behaviour of restorative materials against natural enamel and opposing restorations remains a critical clinical consideration. Objective To comparatively evaluate the surface and volumetric wear of natural teeth, metal-ceramic crowns, and zirconia crowns when opposed by metal, metal-ceramic, and zirconia surfaces under standardised in vitro conditions. Materials and methods Ninety freshly extracted human premolars were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 30): natural teeth, metal-ceramic crowns, and zirconia crowns. Each group was further subdivided (n = 10) according to opposing disc material (metal, metal-ceramic, or zirconia). Specimens were mounted in acrylic resin and subjected to wear testing using a pin-on-disc apparatus under a constant 2 kg load for 10 cycles of one-hour duration with continuous distilled water irrigation at 37°C. Surface and volumetric wear were measured after testing. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results Significant differences in both surface and volumetric wear were observed among groups (p < 0.05). Metal-ceramic antagonists produced the highest surface wear across natural teeth (177.2 ± 40.4), metal-ceramic crowns (181.3 ± 37.6), and zirconia crowns (141.4 ± 56.7). Metal discs demonstrated the lowest surface wear in all categories. Volumetric analysis revealed that zirconia opposing surfaces consistently resulted in the least material loss. Conclusions Wear behaviour varied significantly depending on restorative and opposing material combinations. Metal-ceramic antagonists generated the greatest wear, whereas zirconia surfaces demonstrated comparatively favourable and enamel-compatible wear characteristics. Polished zirconia may represent a clinically acceptable balance between aesthetics and functional durability.
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.