The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Qualitative Assessment of Wear Resistance and Surface Hardness of Different Commercially Available Dental Porcelain: An in vitro Study

Abhishek Nagpal, Gaurav Issar

Citation Information : Nagpal A, Issar G. Qualitative Assessment of Wear Resistance and Surface Hardness of Different Commercially Available Dental Porcelain: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (9):755-761.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1925

Published Online: 01-02-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



In an attempt to minimize wear damage to the enamel of antagonist teeth, new low and medium fusing ceramic materials have been developed. Manufacturers usually claim that these ceramics are wear-friendly because of their lower hardness, lower concentrations of crystal phase, and smaller crystal sizes. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the wear strength of various commercially available dental porcelain with tooth enamel as well as the surface hardness of these dental porcelain.

Materials and methods

The basic model was designed as a pin on plate arrangement. The tooth specimens were mounted on the stylus which was centered on the ceramic specimen in a wear testing machine. The dental ceramic specimen was centered in the metal die. A load of 40 N was applied at a rate of 80 cycles/minute for 15 minutes. In the current study, mean wear depth (Ra) value, volumetric loss, and surface hardness were obtained by standard quantification method and were statistically evaluated.


Ceramco-3 was reported to be most abrasive for enamel; however, Duceram love significantly more abraded itself than the other two, Ceramco-3 and Vita Alpha, and generated the lowest loss of enamel. Also, same abrasive type of wear was revealed for all three variants of tested ceramics.


Ceramco-3 was the most abrasive for enamel, while surface roughness (mean wear depth) of Duceram love was maximum and for Ceramco-3 it was minimum. The value of surface roughness for Vita Alpha was in between Duceram love and Ceramco-3. Nonetheless, the mean surface hardness of Duceram love was found to be least and maximum for Vita Alpha.

Clinical significance

In situations of dental wear and wasting tooth disease (Attrition/Abrasion), Duceram can be applied in lieu of Ceramco-3 so as to prevent worsening of existing dentition. However, in younger patients Vita Alpha would offer maximum durability due to its greater surface hardness.

How to cite this article

Singh A, Nagpal A, Pawah S, Pathak C, Issar G, Sharma P. Qualitative Assessment of Wear Resistance and Surface Hardness of Different Commercially Available Dental Porcelain: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17(9):755-761.

PDF Share
  1. Wear of low-fusing dental porcelains. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Apr;81(4):460-463.
  2. In vitro investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Mar;81(3):356-364.
  3. Wear of dental materials: part V. Dent Advertiser 1985:61(1):13-15.
  4. Development of an artificial oral environment for the testing of dental restoratives: bi-axial force and movement control. J Dent Res 1983 Jan;62(1):32-36.
  5. The wear of dental amalgam in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 1985 Dec;1(6):238-242.
  6. Wear of enamel and veneering ceramics after laboratory and chair side finishing procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Dec;82(6):669-679.
  7. Douglas WH. The wear of enamel when opposed by ceramic systems. Dent Mater 1989 Jul;5(4):266-271.
  8. Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Dec;74(6):647-654.
  9. The abrasive effect of glazed, unglazed, and polished porcelain on the wear of human enamel, and the influence of carbonated soft drinks on the rate of wear. Int J Prosthodont 1997 May-Jun;10(3):269-282.
  10. Variation in tooth wear in young adults over a two-year period. J Prosthet Dent 1997 Mar;77(3):313-320.
  11. Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear simulation methods. Dent Mater 2006 Feb;22(2):166-175.
  12. Influence of multiple sintering on wear behavior of Cercon veneering ceramic. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2010 Apr;28(2):211-213.
  13. The wear of metals by hard abrasives. Wear 1967 Jul;10(4):291-309.
  14. An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Nov;96(5):345-353.
  15. Friction and wear behaviour of dental feldspathic porcelain. Wear 2006 Sep;261(5-6): 611-621.
  16. Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res 2006 Dec;85(12):1097-1100.
  17. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Oct;96(4):258-265.
  18. Microstructural characterization and comparative evaluation of physical, mechanical and biological properties of three ceramics for metal-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2008 Oct;24(10):1362-1373.
  19. Wear of feldspathic ceramic, nano-filled composite resin and acrylic resin artificial teeth when opposed to different antagonists. Eur J Oral Sci 2008 Dec;116(6):585-592.
  20. Quantitative measurement of tooth and ceramic wear: in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2008 May-Jun;21(3):245-252.
  21. Esthetic restorative materials and opposing enamel wear. Oper Dent 2008 May-Jun;33(3):332-337.
  22. Wear testing of composite, gold, porcelain, and enamel opposing a removable cobalt-chromium partial denture alloy. J Prosthodont 2009 Jul;18(5):421-426.
  23. Wear quantification of human enamel and dental glass–ceramics using white light profilometry. Wear 2010 Oct;269(11-12):930-936.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.