Introduction

Tooth wear represent non-carious loss of the tooth structure that may occur
through physiologic or pathologic [Link], it takes two forms:
abrasion or [Link] occurs when athird object is interposed during
mastication where attrition is tooth-tooth contact during [Link],
through clenching and bruxism.
Dental restorative materials must be able to withstand stresses and wear caused by
the repetitive forces of mastication. (1) Ideally, a restorative material wear
property should mimic that of human enamel.(2) ceramics mimic natural
tooth structure regarding bio-compatibility, aesthetics and strength. Ceramic
restorative materials that can be easily polished and have hardness values less than
that of enamel are indicated to minimize the wear on the antagonist enamel.(3)The
type, micro-structure, surface roughness, and strength clearly
affect the wear behavior of these restorative materials.(4)
According to Gracis et al. , all-ceramic materials and ceramic-like restorative
dental materials are divided into three families with respect to the phase or phases
present in their chemical composition as follows: glass-matrix ceramics(lithium
disilicate), polycrystalline ceramics(zirconia-based); and resin-matrix
ceramics(hybrid ceramics).(5)
Clinical tests are mandatory for characterizing the complex oral
wear condition but are also expensive and time consuming. They
also do not provide control of variables such as individual
masticatory forces or oral conditions.(6)So, in-vitro mastication
simulating apparatus still appears as a practical solution for ranking
the wear performance of recent materials.(7)
 Review of literature

Wear is a complex phenomenon defined by wear tribology and bio-tribocorrosion

and has been described in 5 terms: 2-body abrasion, 3-body abrasion, fatigue wear,
tribochemical wear, and adhesive wear. (8) Abrasive wear is the primary form of wear in
dentistry [9] and is further subdivided into two types: two-body and three-body. In two-body wear
the surfaces are worn by direct contact between opposing surfaces, while in three-body the
surfaces are worn away by the slurry of abrasive particles that intervene between the moving
surfaces [10]. A combination of two-body and three-body wear typically occurs between
opposing enamel and restorative materials [11].
Established wear tests include using a tooth-brushing machine and the use of two-body wear
simulators such as abrasion single-pass sliding, two-body wear rotating countersample, and Taber
abraser [12]. Advances in current technology have enabled simulation of the human chewing cycle
in a laboratory using specific loads and frictional forces exerted by a chewing simulator [13]
Verena Preis et al. (2012) determined the two-body wear
resistance of different dental ceramics after grinding and polishing
treatments. They used specimens prepared from zirconia and
veneering ceramics subjected to different surface treatments.
Human enamel was used for reference. Surface roughness was
determined using a proflometric contact surface measurement
device. Wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator. Scanning
electron microscopy was applied for evaluating the wear
performance. The results showed that no wear was found for
zirconia. Enamel antagonists generally showed no changes, but
revealed smooth surfaces when opposed to zirconia and ploughed
surfaces when opposed to porcelains or glaze. So they concluded
that Zirconia ceramics yielded superior wear behavior and lower
antagonistic wear compared to porcelains. (13)
Werner H. Mo¨rmann et al. (2013) determined the two-
body wear and tooth brushing wear parameters including gloss and
roughness plus Martens hardness, of nine aesthetic CAD/CAM
materials. Human enamel as a control group. They used body wear
investigated in chewing simulator. Analysis of wear was carried out
with a 3D-surface analyzer. Gloss and roughness measurements
were evaluated using a gloss meter and an inductive surface
profilometer before and after tooth brushing of specimens. The
results showed that; Zirconium dioxide ceramics showed no
material wear and low wear of the enamel antagonist while
CAD/CAM silicate, lithium disilicate, hybrid ceramics, nano
composite and direct nano composite did not differ from that of
enamel. So they concluded that; CAD/CAM block materials tested
behave similarly with respect to two-body wear and tooth brushing
(14)
wear than enamel.
Mutlu O¨zcan et al (2013) evaluated the effect of air-particle
abrasion protocols on the surface characteristics of zirconia after
cyclic loading. They used Disc shaped zirconia specimens submitted
to one of the air-particle abrasion protocols: 50 mm Al2O3 particles,
110 mm Al2O3 particles coated with silica and 30 mm Al2O3
particles coated with silica for 20s at2.8 bar pressure. Control group
received no air-abrasion. Zirconia surfaces were characterized and
roughness was measured with3D surface profilometer. The results
showed that; Surface roughness (Ra) was the highest with 50 mm
Al2O3. Air-abrasion protocols increased the roughness of the tested
(15)
zirconia.
Shaymaa E. Elsaka (2013) assessed the influence of surface
treatments on the surface characteristics of different zirconia cores.
She used three types of zirconia cores. The specimens were divided
into four groups: Gr 1 (control; no treatment), Gr 2 (sandblasted), Gr
3 (CH2Cl2 for 60 min), and Gr 4 (experimental hot etching solution
for 60 min). AFM, SEM, EDS, and XRD were carried out. The results
showed that; NZ treated with the experimental hot etching solution
showed the highest Ra values compared with the other groups. So
they concluded that; the experimental hot etching solution could be
considered as alternative treatment modality to sandblasting for
zirconia cores for the longevity of the zirconia veneering ceramic
(16)
restoration.
Sripetchdanond and Leevailoj (2014) investigated the wear
of enamel as opposed to dental ceramics and composite resin. They
used specimens (antagonists), each of monolithic zirconia, glass
ceramic, composite resin, and enamel, prepared into cylindrical
rods. Enamel specimens were abraded with a pin-on-disk wear
tester. The maximum depth of wear (Dmax), mean depth of wear
(Da), and mean surface roughness (Ra) of the enamel specimens
were measured with a profilometer. The wear of both the enamel
and antagonists was evaluated with scanning electron microscope.
The results showed that; insignificant differences were found in
(Dmax, Da) between monolithic zirconia and composite resin, glass
ceramic and enamel. The Ra of enamel specimens increased
significantly after wear tests. So they conclude that monolithic
zirconia and composite resin resulted in less wear to enamel than
(17)
glass ceramic.
Ji-Hee Park et al. (2014) evaluated the 2-body wear of
antagonists for (CAD/CAM) anatomic contour zirconia and veneering
porcelain when opposing human enamel. They used: Y-TZP, Acucera
Y-TZP, Wieland Y-TZP, and Noritake feldspathic. Disk-shaped
specimens tested in a masticatory Simulator. Before testing, the
surface roughness was measured with a nanosurface 3-dimensional
(3D) optical profiler. The surface of the specimens was observed
with a field-emission scanning electron microscope before and after
the experiment. The results showed that; The SEM revealed fine
bubbles and porous surfaces in the Noritake feldspathic ceramic
group, whereas other groups had smooth surfaces. The surface
roughness of Y-TZP after staining and glazing was the greater than
other groups. The antagonist wear of polished Y-TZP group is the
(18)
least while Noritake feldspathic ceramic showed greatest wear.
Carvalho et al. (2014) evaluated the antagonistic wear of
complete molar (CAD/CAM) crowns made of resin nanoceramic,
feldspathic glass ceramic and lithium disilicate placed with a
simplified cementation process. They used molars that received
complete crown preparation and restored with CAD/CAM crowns
(1.5-mm thickness). After cementation, restorations were submitted
to cyclic isometric loading. The results showed that; Crowns made
of RNC seemed to generate the least amount of antagonistic wear.
So they concluded that; Posterior crowns made of RNC seemed to
(10)
cause less wear of antagonists.

Rafat Amer et al. (2015) investigated changes in the surface

roughness after being subjected to 3-body wear-opposing human
enamel of 3 types of ceramics: dense sintered yttrium stabilized
zirconia (Z); lithium disilicate (L); and conventional low-fusing
feldspathic porcelain (P) treated to impart a rough, smooth, or
glazed surface. Z and L ceramic were sectioned from CAD/CAM
blocks into rectangular plates, feldspathic porcelain were formed
into disks. Specimens were placed in a 3-body wear simulator, with
standardized enamel specimens acting as the substrate. Changes in
surface roughness of the ceramics were evaluated. The results
showed that; PS group exhibited the largest change in surface
roughness; The LR group became significantly smoother. So they
concluded that; insignificant changes in the surface roughness
 (19)
among types tested were found.
D ’Arcangelo, et al. (2016) compared the 2-body wear
resistance of human enamel, gold alloy, hot pressed ceramics,
CAD/CAM ceramics, and CAD/CAM feldspathic porcelain as
cylindrical specimens. CAD/CAM ceramics were tested both soon
after grinding and a subsequent glaze firing cycle. Flat enamel
specimens were used as the control group. All specimens were
subjected to a 2-body wear test in a dual axis mastication simulator.
The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical
substance loss and the volume loss. Antagonist wear was also
recorded. The results showed that; the wear depth of gold alloy was
the closest to that of human enamel. The greatest wear was
recorded on the milled CAD/CAM ceramics. So they concluded that;
Wear depth and volumetric loss for the tested ceramics did not
(20)
differ in comparison with the human enamel.
Nathaniel C. Lawson et al. (2016) measured the hardness of
CAD/CAM materials including: lithium disilicate, lithium
silicate/zirconia, resin composite, and a polymer infiltrated ceramic
as blocks. Blocks were sectioned into 4 mm thick for hardness and
wear testing. Vickers micro hardness was measured. The CAD/CAM
materials as well as labial surfaces of human incisors were mounted
in the UAB wear device. Cusps of human premolars were mounted
as antagonists. Volumetric wear and opposing enamel wear were
measured with non-contact profilometry. Specimens were observed
with SEM. The results showed that; lithium disilicate and lithium
silicate/zirconia were generally harder than the other materials. So
they concluded that Resin composite and resin infiltrated ceramic
materials showed adequate wear resistance for load bearing
(21)
restorations.
Verena Preis et al. (2016) investigated the two-body wear
 performance of ceramics after different surface treatments as a
function of number of wear cycles. Specimens were prepared from
veneering porcelain and a lithium disilicate glass ceramic and
progressively glazed, ground, and polished. Steatite and human
enamel specimens served as reference materials. Two-body wear
tests were performed in a pin-on-block. Surface roughness, wear
depth of the specimens and relative wear area of the antagonists
were determined using an optical 3D laser scanning microscope.
SEM evaluation was done. The results showed that; Veneering and
lithium disilicate ceramics showed higher wear depths than zirconia
ceramics. Polished zirconia surfaces showed lowest wear. So they
concluded that; ceramics wear performances are strongly
influenced by surface treatments as well as number of wear cycles.
(22)

Li Zhi et al. (2016) evaluated the wear resistance of CAD/CAM

materials: 4composite resins and ceramic in contact with human
enamel cusps. Specimens were loaded into mastication simulator.
The wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical
substance loss in the contact point area of the specimen. The worn
surfaces were observed by scanning electron microscopy. The
results showed that; ceramics exhibited the best wear resistance
among the tested materials, followed resin composites. The Kerr
experimental material exhibited the lowest wear resistance. So they
concluded that; the wear resistance of composite resin blocks was
(23)
significantly lower than that of a ceramic block.
Yunyang Bai et al. (2016) evaluated the 2-body wear
resistance of colored zirconia after different glazing and polishing
treatments. They used Standardized specimens prepared from
zirconia (internal and external staining and no staining) and
subjected to different surface treatments. The stained zirconia and
control ceramics were polished, while the non-stained zirconia was
airborne-particle abraded and glazed. Specimens were then
abraded using a pin-on-disk wear tester. The wear depth for the
specimens was measured using confocal microscopy. Wear areas on
the antagonists were measured by using an optical microscope.
Scanning electron microscopy was used. The results showed that;
the surfaces polished showed no wear. SEM revealed chipping,
fractures, and peeling cracks on the glazed zirconia surfaces. So
they concluded that; highly polished zirconia shows the least wear.
(24)

Simon Flury et al. (2016) investigated the effect of artificial

tooth brushing and water storage on the surface roughness (Ra and
Rz) of different CAD-CAM materials (composite resin, afeldspathic
ceramic, resin nano ceramic, a hybrid dental ceramic, and a nano
composite resin). All specimens were roughened in a standardized
manner and polished. Ra and Rz, VHN, and EIT were measured after
polishing and after storage with periodic, artificial tooth brushing.
The results showed that; resin nanoceramic showed the lowest
surface roughness while feldspathic ceramic the highest. Nano
composite resin was most sensitive to storage, resin nanoceramic
and hybrid dental ceramic were least sensitive. So they concluded
that; CAD-CAM materials with lower VHN and EIT generally showed
better polishability but prone to degradation by artificial tooth
(25)
brushing and water storage.
Jean-Jacques Canneto et al. (2016) assessed surface and
subsurface damage on 4CAD-CAM high-strength ceramics (3Y-TZP,
dense Al2O3, alumina glass-infiltrated and alumina–zirconia glass-
infiltrated) after grinding with diamond disks of different sizes.
Rectangular specimens with 2 mirror polished sides were bonded
pairwise together prior to degrading the top polished surface with
the diamond disks. The induced chip damage was evaluated on the
bonded interface using SEM for chip depth measurements .The
results showed that 3Y-TZP was hardly affected by grinding chip
damage. So they concluded that; reshaping a ceramic framework
post sintering should be avoided with final diamond grits of 75
microns as a general rule. For alumina and the glass-infiltrated
alumina, using sequentially finer diamonds is needed to avoid chip
damage which may affect strength. (26)
G.T. Theodoro et al. (2017) evaluated the effect of neutral
and acidulated fluoride gel, used as preventive agents, at wear of
dental ceramics. They used crowns and disks obtained by heat-
pressing. Crowns and disks were submitted to two-body wear test at
machine of mechanical loading, simulating occlusion. Samples were
totally immersed during the test as: control, neutral (sodium
fluoride 2%) and acidulated (acidulated phosphate fluoride 1.23%).
Samples were analyzed for vertical height loss after the test using,
respectively, profile projector and stereomicroscope. Roughness of
worn surface of samples was evaluated by laser confocal
microscopy. A crown/disk of each group was analyzed by scanning
electronic microscopy. The results showed that ceramic and fluoride
gel affects wear and roughness of worn [Link] they concluded
(27)
that; wear is greater for ZIR and lower for EMP.
Philippe Currana et al (2017) assessed surface/subsurface
damage after grinding with diamond discs on five CAD-CAM
restorative materials. Specimens were cut from CAD-CAM blocks
and pair-wise mirror polished for the bonded interface technique.
Top surfaces were ground with diamond discs of respectively 75, 54
and 18 micrometers. Chip damage was measured on the bonded
interface using SEM. The results showed that; Grinding with a 75
micrometer diamond disc induced on a bonded interface critical
chips for all three glass-ceramics (LIT, LEU, VM2). The softer
materials EN and LU were little damage susceptible with chips.
Grinding with18 micrometer diamond discs was still quite
detrimental for LIT. So they concluded that; Careful polishing should
be performed after grinding when dealing with glass-ceramics to
(28)
avoid surface/subsurface damage.
L.F. Guilardia et al. (2017) determined the effects of grinding
and low temperature aging on the surface topography and
roughness analysis of an yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia
polycrystalline ceramic. They used Ceramic discs assigned into six
groups: ‘grinding’ (Ctrl –without treatment, as-sintered; Xfine –
grinding with extra fine diamond bur – 30 μm; Coarse grinding by
coarse diamond bur – 151 μm), and ‘aging’ (without or with aging:
CtrlLTD; XfineLTD; CoarseLTD). Grinding was performed in an
oscillatory motion with a contra-angle hand piece under constant
water-cooling. The results showed that; the roughness (Ra and Rz
parameters) significantly increased after grinding in accordance
with bur grit-size (Coarse>Xfine > Ctrl), and aging promoted
distinct effects (Ctrl=CtrlLTD; Xfine > XfineLTD; Coarse=CoarseLTD).
(29)

Ella A. Naumova et al. (2017) evaluated the wear behavior

of (CAD/CAM) crowns: nano ceramic resin (LU), a glass ceramic in a
resin interpenetrating matrix (VE) and a lithium silicate reinforced
ceramic enriched with zirconia (VS) and natural antagonists. Crowns
were cemented on human molars. The crown and antagonists were
subjected to simulated chewing. Occlusal surface roughness,
vertical and volume loss of the crowns and antagonists were
analyzed. The results showed that; Crown roughness was
significantly different between the LU and VE. The highest crown
volume loss was found in the LU group while the lowest in the VE
group. The highest antagonist volume loss was reached in the VE
group but the lowest was in the LU group. So they concluded that:
LU crowns are the most natural antagonist-friendly, the VE crowns
(30)
are the most stable regarding occlusion.

References
1-Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 5th ed.
St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016. p. 70.
2-D’Arcangelo, Camillo, et al. "Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains
compared with human enamel." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 115.3 (2016): 350-
355.
3- Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed,
glazed and polished porcelain on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:320-3.
4-Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. Wear
of ceramic and antagonist; systematic evaluation of influencing
factors in vitro. Dent Mater; 24:433-49(2008).
5-Gracis, S., et al. "A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like
restorative materials." The International journal of prosthodontics 28.3 (2015): 227.
6-Condon JR, Ferracane JL.: In vitro wear of composite with varied
cure, filler level, and filler treatment. J Dent Res; 76:1405-11(1997).
7-Heintze SD, Zellweger G, and Cavalleri A, Ferracane J.: Influence
of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using
two different wear simulation methods. Dent Mater; 22:166-
75(2006).
8-Amer, Rafat, et al. "Three-body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized
zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments." Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 112.5 (2014): 1151-1155.
9-Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, Hittelman EL. An
evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2006;96(5):345–53.
10-Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Quantitative in vivo
wear of human enamel. Journal of Dental Research 1989;68(12):1752–4.
11-Kadokawa A, Suzuki S, Tanaka T. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold,
composite resin, and enamel. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2006;96(4):258–65.
12-Lambrechts P, Debels E, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. How to
simulate wear? Overview of existing methods. Dent Mater 2006;22:693–701.
13-Heintze SD, Faouzi M, Rousson V, Ozcan M. Correlation of wear in vivo and six
laboratory wear methods. Dent Mater 2012;28:961–73.