The missing comparison to other PICN materials can be considered a limitation of the study. Since VE is a unicum in the family of PICN materials, it is difficult to find an appropriate material of comparison, especially since Lava Ultimate (3M Espe), a resin nanoceramic, is no longer indicated as a crown material due to a high rate of loosening. The review of Mainjot et al. reported that the loosening has mostly occurred when bonded to zirconia and that there is a lack of studies concerning bonding of VE to other ceramics [25].

Although the sample size of this pilot study is limited (due to the practicability reasons associated with the applied procedures), the standard deviations are low, which improved the statistical power of our analysis.

Surface wear of replicas of the superstructure’s occlusal was assessed by Micro-CT instead of the crowns themselves. This was done to entrench the Micro-CT as a clinical method to quantify abrasion. Using a Micro-CT for quantifying abrasion could be a non-invasive option without radiation exposure for the patient. Additionally, the grouting material (Stycast Epoxidharz) exhibits a very low viscosity of 0.65 Pa s [26] and therefore a high flowability even in small volumes which can result in exact replicas.

The use of spherical steatite indenter during CS instead of natural teeth with their anatomy and composition may be a limitation of the study.

Abrasion may depend on the type of construction as well. Wear of VE crowns on one-piece zirconia implants seems different from wear of VE crowns on dentin-like materials [10]. This aspect should be investigated in further studies.