The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An In Vitro Comparative Study to Assess Minimal Thickness Required for Monolithic Zirconia Crowns to Resist Fracture under Load on Rapid Prototyped Models

Vandana Narayanan, Vinod Narayanan, Shivkumar A Devanarayanan

Keywords : Fracture resistance, Monolithic crowns, Non-hot isostatic pressed zirconia block, Occlusal thickness, Rapid prototyping, Scanning electron microscope

Citation Information : Narayanan V, Narayanan V, Devanarayanan SA. An In Vitro Comparative Study to Assess Minimal Thickness Required for Monolithic Zirconia Crowns to Resist Fracture under Load on Rapid Prototyped Models. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (2):183-189.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2755

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and validate minimal thickness required for computer-aided designed (CAD) and computer-aided manufactured (CAM) monolithic zirconia crowns to withstand occlusal load. The study compares two systems. Materials and methods: Forty-eight rapid prototype die models with varying occlusal reductions were fabricated. Group I samples had an axial wall height of 7.0 mm with occlusal reduction of 0.5 mm, group II had axial wall height 6.5 mm with occlusal reduction 1.0 mm, group III had axial wall height 6.0 mm with occlusal reduction of 1.5 mm. Control group IV had axial wall height 5.5 mm with occlusal reduction of 2.0 mm. Laboratories A (Czar) and B (3M) were provided with 24 samples each, 6 samples in each group for fabricating CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2 mm occlusal thickness, respectively, and cemented using resin-modified glass ionomer cement over the die models. Samples were loaded on a universal testing machine for fracture testing. Surface topography analysis of fractured specimens was done under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and honestly significant difference (HSD) Tukey test to analyze statistical significance at 0.05 levels. Results: Samples of laboratory A performed superior to laboratory B. The t test showed fracture resistance of group AI (0.5 mm) > group BII (1.0 mm) and also group AIII (1.5 mm) > control of Lab B (2 mm). Conclusion: Monolithic zirconia crowns showed a favorable mechanical property to withstand occlusal load with minimal tooth preparation. The occlusal thickness of Czar with 0.5 mm is found to resist fracture under physiological masticatory load. Scanning electron microscope revealed increased voids in the microstructure of 3M, which lead to decreased fracture resistance. Clinical significance: Preservation of tooth structure can be considered using monolithic crowns with minimal thickness of 1 mm.


PDF Share
  1. Blair FM, Wassell RW, Steele JG. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: preparations for full veneer crowns. Br Dent J 2002;192(10):561–564. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801428.
  2. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):83–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.024.
  3. Shinogaya T, Bakke M, Thomsen CE, et al. Bite force and occlusal load in healthy young subjects–a methodological study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8(1):11–15.
  4. Ash MM, Nelson SJ. Wheeler's Dental Anatomy, Physiology, and Occlusion, 8th ed. Saunders; 2006. p. 302.
  5. Nishitani Y, Yoshiyama M, Tay FR. Tensile strength of mineralized/demineralized human normal and carious dentin. J Dent Res 2005;84(11):1075–1078. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508401121.
  6. Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, et al. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res 2005;19(1):11–16. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242005000100003.
  7. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Eichberger M. High-strength CAD/CAM-fabricated veneering material sintered to zirconia copings–a new fabrication mode for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2009;25(1):121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.04.019.
  8. Ersu B, Narin D, Aktas G, et al. Effect of preparation taper and height on strength and retention of zirconia crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(6):582–584.
  9. Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85(4):363–376. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.114685.
  10. Giannetopoulos S, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of ceramic copings with different marginal angles using two different CAD/CAM systems. J Dent 2010;38(12):980–986. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.08.011.
  11. Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Guess PC, et al. Fatigue and damage accumulation of veneer porcelain pressed on Y-TZP. J Dent 2010;38(4):318–324. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.12.004.
  12. Bakke M, Michler L, Han K, et al. Clinical significance of isometric bite force versus electrical activity in temporal and masseter muscles. Scand J Dent Res 1989;97(6):539–551. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1989.tb00929.x.
  13. Hagberg C. Assessments of bite force: a review. J Craniomandib Disord 1987;1(3):162–169.
  14. Braun S, Bantleon HP, Hnat WP, et al. A study of bite force, part 1: relationship to various physical characteristics. Angle Orthod 1995;65(5):367–372. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0367:ASOBFP>2.0.CO;2.
  15. Hylander WL. The adaptive significance of Eskimo craniofacial morphology. In: Dahlberg AA, Graber TM, ed. Orofacial Growth and Development. The Hague: Mouton Publishers; 1977. pp. 129–169.
  16. Hattori Y, Satoh C, Kunieda T. Bite forces and their resultants during forceful inter-cuspal clenching in humans. J Biomech 2009;42(10):1533–1538. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.040.
  17. Waltimo A, Nystrom M, Kononen M. Bite force and dentofacial morphology in men with severe dental attrition. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102(2):92–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1994.tb01161.x.
  18. Waugh LM. Dental observations among Eskimo. VII. Survey of mouth conditions, nutritional study, and gnatho - dynamometer data, in most primitive and populous native villages in Alaska. J Dent Res 1937;16:355–356.
  19. Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Mauderli A, et al. Limits of human bite strength. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56(2):226–229. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90480-4.
  20. Yucel MT, Yondem I, Aykent F, et al. Influence of the supporting die structures on the fracture strength of all-ceramic materials. Clin Oral Invest 2012;16(4):1105–1110. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0606-z.
  21. Inoue S, Pereira PN, Kawamoto C, et al. Effect of depth and tubule direction on ultimate tensile strength of human coronal dentin. Dent Mater J 2003;22(1):39–47. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.22.39.
  22. Langeland K, Langeland LK. Pulp reactions to crown preparation, impression, temporary crown fixation and permanent cementation. J Prosthet Dent 1965;15:129–143. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(65) 90073-9.
  23. Denry I, Kelly J. State of the art zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24(3):299–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007. 05.007.
  24. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20(1):1–25. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00010-6.
  25. Cho E, Kopel H, White SN. Moisture susceptibility of resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Quintessence Int 1995;26(5):351–358.
  26. Gemalmaz D, Yoruc AB, Ozcan M, et al. The effect of early water contact on solubility of glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1997;76:318.
  27. Mojon P, Kaltio R, Feduik D, et al. Short-term contamination of luting cements by water and saliva. Dent Mater 1996;12(2):83–87. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80073-X.
  28. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, et al. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics, 3rd ed. Quintessence Publication Co. Inc.; 2002.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.