The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  26 (2025)
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Influence of Different Cements and Cement Thickness on the Stress Distribution under Occlusal Surfaces of Porcelain-fused-to-metal and Porcelain-fused-to-zirconium Crowns: A Finite Element Analysis

Sidhartha Behera, Lankapali Srikanth, Meesala Navya Deepthi, Mondal Susmita

Keywords : Cement thickness, Finite element analysis, Porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, Porcelain-fused-to-zirconia crowns, Stress distribution

Citation Information : Behera S, Srikanth L, Deepthi MN, Susmita M. Influence of Different Cements and Cement Thickness on the Stress Distribution under Occlusal Surfaces of Porcelain-fused-to-metal and Porcelain-fused-to-zirconium Crowns: A Finite Element Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (12):1224-1229.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3448

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the influence of two different cement space settings and two different cement types on the stress distribution under occlusal surfaces of tooth restored with two different types of crowns and studied by using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and methods: Eight 3D finite element models (FEMs) representing a mandibular first molar tooth restored with crowns of, porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and porcelain-fused-to-zirconia (PFZ) crowns with two cement space settings (50 and 80 µm) and with two different types of cement were constructed, using an FEA software (ANSYS, version 10). Each model was subjected to a distributed load simulating normal masticatory bite force of 225 N and was applied axial direction. Also, von Mises stress of each individual part in the system of models was calculated. Results: The PFM crowns undergo less stress distribution than the PFZ crowns. The PFM crowns are more compatible with self-adhesive cements, and the PFZ crowns are more compatible with resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Conclusion: The PFM crowns with G-Cem Link Ace with 50 µm and PFZ crowns with RelyX Luting Plus with 80 µm combinations displayed less amount of stress distribution under normal masticatory bite force. Clinical significance: Self-adhesive resin cements with PFM crowns and PFZ with resin-modified glass ionomer cements show more benefits in stress distribution under occlusal surfaces under normal masticatory bite force.

PDF Share
  1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal Crowns Versus All-Ceramic Crowns: A Review of the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Rapid Response Reports, 2016. PMID: 27336103.
  2. Boujoual I, Moussaoui H, Andoh A. Demystifying the bonding to zirconia: A Systematic review of the literature. Int J Infor Res Rev 2017;4(2):3646–3653.
  3. Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel? Nature 1975;258(5873):703–704.
  4. Warreth A, Elkareimi Y. All-ceramic restorations: A review of the literature. Saudi Dent J 2020;32(8):365–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.05.004.
  5. Takeichi T, Katsoulis J, Blatz MB. Clinical outcome of single porcelain-fused-to-zirconium dioxide crowns a systematic review. J Prosthetic Dent 2013;110(6):455–561. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.015.
  6. Ha SR, Kim SH, Lee J-B, et al. Biomechanical three-dimensional finite element analysis of monolithic zirconia crown with different cement thickness. Ceram Int 2016;42(13):14928–14936. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.133.
  7. Kamposiora P, Papavasilious G, Bayne SC, et al. Finite element analysis estimates of cement microfracture under complete veneer crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(5):435–441. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90179-1.
  8. Proos KA, Swain MV, Ironside J, et al. Influence of cement on a restored crown of a first premolar using finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(1):82–90. PMID: 12675462.
  9. May LG, Kelly JR, Bottino MA, et al. Effects of cement thickness and bonding on the failure loads of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns: Multi-physics FEA modeling and monotonic testing. Dent Mater 2012;28(8):e99–e109. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.033.
  10. D'souza KM, Aras MA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution pattern in a mandibular first molar tooth restored with five different restorative materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(1):53. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.197938.
  11. Imanishi A, Nakamura T, Ohyama T, et al. 3-D Finite element analysis of all-ceramic posterior crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(8):818–822. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01123.x.
  12. Diab H, Shibatalhamad Y. Effect of full ceramic crown versus ceramic fused to metal crown on periodontal tissues health. EC Dent Sci 2018;17(7):1041–1046.
  13. Bakhtiary P, Aref P. Zirconia crowns with porcelain veneers for optimal esthetics in children using CAD/CAM technology: A case report. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2022;7(3):168–174.
  14. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, et al. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015;31(6):603–623. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011.
  15. Le M, Papia E, Larsson C. The clinical success of tooth-and implant-supported zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2015;42(6):467–480. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12272.
  16. Pameijer CH. A review of luting agents. Int J Dent 2012;2012:752861. DOI: 10.1155/2012/752861.
  17. 3M ESPE, “RelyX™ Unicem; Self-Adhesive Universal Resin Cement; Technical Product Profile,” 2002.
  18. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Altitinchi A. Physical properties, film thickness, and bond strengths of resin-modified glass ionomer cements according to their delivery method. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):85–90. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12779.
  19. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, et al. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhesive Dent 2008;10(4):251–258. PMID: 18792695.
  20. Furuichi T, Takamizawa T, Tsujimoto A, et al. Mechanical properties and sliding-impact wear resistance of self-adhesive resin cements. Operative dentistry. 2016;41(3):E83–E92. DOI: 10.2341/15-033-L.
  21. Dauti R, Lilaj B, Heimel P, et al. Influence of two different cement space settings and three different cement types on the fit of polymer-infiltrated ceramic network material crowns manufactured using a complete digital workflow. Clinic Oral Invest 2020;24(6):1929–1938. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03053-1.
  22. Nakamura T, Imanishi A, Kashima H, et al. Stress analysis of metal-free polymer crowns using the three-dimensional finite element method. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(5): 401–405. PMID: 12066632.
  23. Liu B, Lu C, Wu Y, et al. The effects of adhesive type and thickness on stress distribution in molars restored with all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthodont 2011;20(1):35–44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00650.x.
  24. Rezende CE, Borges AF, Gonzaga CC, et al. Effect of cement space on stress distribution in Y-TZP based crowns. Dent Mater 2017;33(2):144–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.006.
  25. Sangeetha A, Padmanabhan TV, Subramaniam R, et al. Finite element analysis of stresses in fixed prosthesis and cement layer using a three-dimensional model. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2012;4(Suppl. 2): S384–S389. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.100291.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.