scholarly journals Achieving Esthetics in Anterior Region using Monolithic Zirconia Restoration

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Chonghwa Kim
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Region ◽  
Monolithic Zirconia

Factors Affecting the Wear Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia and the Antagonists: Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11
Author(s):  
Marcia Borba ◽  
Paula Benetti ◽  
Giordana P. Furini ◽  
Kátia R. Weber ◽  
Tábata M. da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Wear Behavior ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Human Tooth ◽  
Initial Surface ◽  
Monolithic Zirconia ◽  
Feldspathic Porcelain

Background: The use of zirconia-based ceramics to produce monolithic restorations has increased due to improvements in the optical properties of the materials. Traditionally, zirconiabased ceramics were veneered with porcelain or glass-ceramic and were not directly exposed to the oral environment. Therefore, there are several doubts regarding the wear of the monolithic zirconia restoration and their antagonists. Additionally, different surface treatments are recommended to promote a smooth surface, including glaze and several polishing protocols. To support the correct clinical application, it is important to understand the advantages and limitations of each surface treatment. Objective: The aim of this short literature review is to investigate the factors that may affect the wear of monolithic zirconia restorations in service and their antagonists. Methods: Pubmed/Medline database was accessed to review the literature from a 10-year period using the keywords: zirconia, monolithic, prosthesis, wear. Both clinical and in vitro studies were included in the review. Results: Studies investigated the effect of several surface treatments, including grinding with diamond- burs, polishing and glazing, on the surface roughness, phase transformation and wear capacity of monolithic zirconia. The wear behavior of monolithic zirconia was frequently compared to the wear behavior of other ceramics, such as feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate-based glassceramic and leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic. Human tooth, ceramics and resin composites were used as antagonist in the investigations. Only short-term clinical studies are available (up to 2 years). Conclusion: Literature findings suggest that zirconia monolithic restorations are wear resistant and unlikely to cause excessive wear to the antagonist, especially when compared to feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramics. Monolithic zirconia should be polished rather than glazed. Yet, none of the polishing systems studied was able to completely restore the initial surface conditions of zirconia after being adjusted with burs. More clinical evidence of the antagonist tooth wear potential of monolithic zirconia is needed.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Ginsburg Scheme: Where Is Significant Prostate Cancer Missed?

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 2502
Author(s):  
August Sigle ◽  
Cordula A. Jilg ◽  
Timur H. Kuru ◽  
Nadine Binder ◽  
Jakob Michaelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Anterior Region ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Systematic Biopsy

Background: Systematic biopsy (SB) according to the Ginsburg scheme (GBS) is widely used to complement MRI-targeted biopsy (MR-TB) for optimizing the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). Knowledge of the GBS’s blind sectors where sPCa is missed is crucial to improve biopsy strategies. Methods: We analyzed cancer detection rates in 1084 patients that underwent MR-TB and SB. Cancerous lesions that were missed or underestimated by GBS were re-localized onto a prostate map encompassing Ginsburg sectors and blind-sectors (anterior, central, basodorsal and basoventral). Logistic regression analysis (LRA) and prostatic configuration analysis were applied to identify predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. Results: GBS missed sPCa in 39 patients (39/1084, 3.6%). In 27 cases (27/39, 69.2%), sPCa was missed within a blind sector, with 17/39 lesions localized in the anterior region (43.6%). Neither LRA nor prostatic configuration analysis identified predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. Conclusions: This is the first study to analyze the distribution of sPCa missed by the GBS. GBS misses sPCa in few men only, with the majority localized in the anterior region. Adding blind sectors to GBS defined a new sector map of the prostate suited for reporting histopathological biopsy results.

scholarly journals Quantitative analysis on the wear of monolithic zirconia crowns on antagonist teeth

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenyu Tang ◽  
Xinyi Zhao ◽  
Hui Wang
Keyword(s):  
Epoxy Resin ◽  
Tetragonal Zirconia ◽  
Fatigue Wear ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Contact Points ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Zirconia Crowns ◽  
Natural Teeth ◽  
Monolithic Zirconia

Abstract Background The present study aimed to quantitate the wear of the highly transparent Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) ceramic monolithic zirconia crown on the enamel in vivo and discuss the prone position of the wear and the underlying mechanism. Methods A total of 43 patients with 43 posterior teeth were selected for full zirconia crown restoration and examined immediately, at 6 months, and at 1 year after restoration. During the follow-up visit, the fine impression of the patients’ monolithic zirconia crowns, the antagonist teeth, the corresponding contralateral natural teeth, the super plaster cast, and epoxy resin model was ontained. The model of epoxy resin was observed under a stereo microscope, and the microstructure parts were observed under a scanning electron microscope. Results After 1 year, the mean depth and volume of wearing of the monolithic zirconia crown were the smallest (all P < 0.01), while those of the antagonist teeth were significantly larger than those of the natural teeth (P < 0.0001), and no significant difference was found among the natural teeth (P = 0.3473, P = 0.6996). The amount of wear after one year was remarkably higher than that at 6 months (P < 0.0001). The microscopic observation revealed the tendency of wearing of the monolithic zirconia crown on the antagonist teeth at the protruding early contact points. Electron micrographs of tooth scars showed that the wearing mechanism of the monolithic zirconia crown on natural teeth was mainly abrasive and fatigue wear. Conclusions Although the self-wearing is insignificant, the monolithic zirconia crown can cause wear of the antagonist teeth via occlusal or early contact significantly; the amount of wearing is higher than that of natural teeth and increases over time. The wearing mechanism is mainly abrasive and fatigue wear.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document