Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 245-249
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709342
Original Article

Effect of Reduced Occlusal Thickness with Two Margin Designs on Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns

Haider Hasan Jasim 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Meelad Basil Findakly 
2   Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Nada Ali Mahdi 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Mustafa Tariq Mutar 
2   Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two margin designs (shoulderless and slight chamfer) with two occlusal thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure mode of the monolithic zirconia crowns.

Materials and Methods Forty nickel–chromium dies were duplicated from the previous two prepared teeth using a three-dimensional optical scanner. Nickel–chromium supporting dies were divided into two main groups (n = 20) according to the type of margin design: group A, slight chamfer margin design and group B, shoulderless margin design. These groups were further divided into two subgroups according to the occlusal thicknesses (0.5 and 1 mm). The digital imaging of each die was done using a three-dimensional optical scanner, then zirconia blocks were milled by 5-axis machine. The crowns were cleaned by alcohol, air dried, and cemented by resin cement. Next, the crowns were subjected to 500 hot and cold cycles (30 seconds for each cycle). The samples were subjected to a static load until failure using an electronic universal testing machine and fracture resistance was recorded in Newton (N).

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using the test of normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Results  The highest mean fracture load was recorded by the shoulderless (1 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (3,992.5 N), followed by shoulderless (0.5 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (3,244.4 N), and the slight chamfer (1 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (2,811 N). The lowest mean of fracture load was recorded by slight chamfer (0.5 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (1,632.9 N). The two-way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference between the four subgroups. Regarding the fracture mode, the slight chamfer subgroups showed a severe fracture of the restoration while the shoulderless subgroups showed a fracture through the midline of the restoration.

Conclusion Within the limitation of the comparative study, shoulderless margin design has a more favorable outcome than a slight chamfer design in all thicknesses. Although the restoration with reduced occlusal thickness has lower fracture resistance than 1 mm occlusal thickness, the 0.5 mm restorations still can tolerate occlusal forces.

Keywords

zirconia - shoulderless - chamfer - occlusal thickness


Publication History

Article published online:
05 June 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (03) 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (10) 1195-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rashid H, Sheikh Z, Misbahuddin S, Kazmi MR, Qureshi S, Uddin MZ. Advancements in all-ceramics for dental restorations and their effect on the wear of opposing dentition. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (04) 583-588
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Church TD, Jessup JP, Guillory VL, Vandewalle KS. Translucency and strength of high-translucency monolithic zirconium oxide materials. Gen Dent 2017; 65 (01) 48-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mitov G, Anastassova-Yoshida Y, Nothdurft FP, von See C, Pospiech P. Influence of the preparation design and artificial aging on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (01) 30-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Skjold A, Schriwer C, Øilo M. Effect of margin design on fracture load of zirconia crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 2019; 127 (01) 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jang GW, Kim HS, Choe HC, Son MK. Fracture strength and mechanism of dental ceramic crown with zirconia thickness. Procedia Eng 2011; 10: 1556-1560
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nakamura K, Harada A, Inagaki R. et al. Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73 (08) 602-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Poggio CE, Dosoli R, Ercoli C. A retrospective analysis of 102 zirconia single crowns with knife-edge margins. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107 (05) 316-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schmitz JH, Cortellini D, Granata S, Valenti M. Monolithic lithium disilicate complete single crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior region: a multicentric retrospective study up to 12 years. Quintessence Int 2017; 48: 601-608
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Burke FJ. Maximising the fracture resistance of dentine-bonded all-ceramic crowns. J Dent 1999; 27 (03) 169-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Campbell SD. A comparative strength study of metal ceramic and all-ceramic esthetic materials: modulus of rupture. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62 (04) 476-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6 (05) 462-467
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yucel MT, Yondem I, Aykent F, Eraslan O. Influence of the supporting die structures on the fracture strength of all-ceramic materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16 (04) 1105-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Reich S, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of ZrO2 copings. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99 (05) 369-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Beuer F, Aggstaller H, Edelhoff D, Gernet W. Effect of preparation design on the fracture resistance of zirconia crown copings. Dent Mater J 2008; 27 (03) 362-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sasse M, Krummel A, Klosa K, Kern M. Influence of restoration thickness and dental bonding surface on the fracture resistance of full-coverage occlusal veneers made from lithium disilicate ceramic. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (08) 907-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R. et al. Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014; 35: 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Patroni S, Chiodera G, Caliceti C, Ferrari P. CAD/CAM technology and zirconium oxide with feather-edge marginal preparation. Eur J Esthet Dent 2010; 5 (01) 78-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Findakly MB, Jasim HH. Influence of preparation design on fracture resistance of different monolithic zirconia crowns: a comparative study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11 (06) 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Flinn BD, deGroot DA, Mancl LA, Raigrodski AJ. Accelerated aging characteristics of three yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline dental materials. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108 (04) 223-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cotes C, Arata A, Melo RM, Bottino MA, Machado JP, Souza RO. Effects of aging procedures on the topographic surface, structural stability, and mechanical strength of a ZrO2-based dental ceramic. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (12) e396-e404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar