Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Dental Research and Biomaterials Journal 2020; 1(02): 33-39
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716944
Research Article

Evaluation of Fracture Resistance Force in Three Types of Primary Molar Crowns: Milled by CAD\CAM, 3D Dental Printed, and Composite Celluloid Crowns

Mohammed Nour Al-Halabi
1   Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental College, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
,
Nada Bshara
1   Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental College, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
,
John C. Comisi 
2   Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Medical University of South Carolina, James B. Edwards College of Dental Medicine, Charleston, South Carolina, United States
,
Jihad Abou Nassar
1   Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental College, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study compares three types of esthetic crowns in fracture resistance force (FRF) and failure type: (1) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) milled by computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD\CAM), (2) resin-based material via three-dimensional (3D) dental printer, and (3) direct composite celluloid crowns technique in primary molars.

Material and Methods Thirty lower second primary molar were randomized into three experimental groups consisting of ten molars for each: group A:CAD\CAM crowns using PMMA blocks; group B: 3D dental printer to fabricate crowns using glycidyl carbamate photopolymer resin; group C: Selected teeth crowned using direct resin composite celluloid crowns. The three groups (A, B, and C) were stored in water at 37°C for 30 days. The FRFs for the experimental crowned teeth were measured using a universal test machine (Testometric) until fracture and the values compared with the mean maximum bite force of children in the primary dentition. FRFs and failure types were recorded and statistically analyzed.

Results One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences among the groups in FRF testing. Bonferroni test was used for multiple-correction comparison in comparing force needed to fracture the specimens in the three groups. A significant difference was noticed between groups B-C (p = 0.000) and groups A-C (p = 0.000). No significant statistical differences were noted between groups A-B (p = 0.325) in FRF scores. In failure type, no statistical differences were noted when comparing groups, A and B, groups B and C, but comparing groups A and C showed statistical differences in chi-square statistical test.

Conclusion The three tested esthetic crowns exceeded the mean maximum bite force of children in the primary dentition; thus, they can be expected to perform well clinically. Even though using an indirect technique (CAD\CAM milling and 3D printer) showed a higher score in FRF, direct composite celluloid crowns technique can be beneficial since it is easier to repair and still is a useful modality.

Keywords

computer-aided design/computer-assisted milled crowns - primary molars - fracture resistance force - stainless-steel crown


Publication History

Article published online:
01 October 2021

© 2020. European Dental Research and Biomaterials Journal. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2009; 31 (01) 63-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fishman R, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Children’s selection of posterior restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 31 (01) 1-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Roberts JF. The open-face stainless steel crown for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1983; 50 (04) 262-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18 (Suppl. 01) 20-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7 (02) 58-62 discussion 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Innes NP, Ricketts DN, Evans DJ. Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (01) CD005512
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Maragos C. Developing form, function, and natural aesthetics with laboratory-processed composite resin—part II. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005; 17 (07) 449-454, quiz 456
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ram D, Peretz B. Composite crown-form crowns for severely decayed primary molars: a technique for restoring function and esthetics. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000; 24 (04) 257-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks: state of the art of indirect composites. J Dent Res 2016; 95 (05) 487-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Frazier WE. Metal additive manufacturing: a review. J Mater Eng Perform 2014; 23 (06) 1917-1928 doi: DOI: 10.31399/asm.hb.v20.a0009211.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee W-S, Lee D-H, Lee K-B. Evaluation of internal fit of interim crown fabricated with CAD/CAM milling and 3D printing system. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9 (04) 265-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP. et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (02) 192-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Syed M, Chopra R, Sachdev V. Allergic reactions to dental materials—a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (10) ZE04-ZE09
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137 (suppl) 14S-21S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mourouzis P, Arhakis A, Tolidis K. Computer-aided design and manufacturing crown on primary molars: an innovative case report. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (01) 76-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Magne P, Knezevic A. Influence of overlay restorative materials and load cusps on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars. Quintessence Int 2009; 40 (09) 729-737
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Townsend JA, Knoell P, Yu Q. et al. In vitro fracture resistance of three commercially available zirconia crowns for primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2014; 36 (05) 125-129
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Giannini M, Magne P. Fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM complete crowns with a simplified cementation process. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111 (04) 310-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JW, Marcotte MR, Hönigle K, Johnson BE. A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod 1996; 66 (04) 261-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 el-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1999; 66 (04) 238-242, 228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Omer H. Fracture resistance of puplotomized primary molars restored with various restorative materials. Acta Scientific Dent Sci 2019; 3: 98-104
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Magne P, Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Giannini M. Fatigue resistance of ultrathin CAD/CAM complete crowns with a simplified cementation process. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (04) 574-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Salmi M, Paloheimo K-S, Tuomi J, Ingman T, Mäkitie A. A digital process for additive manufacturing of occlusal splints: a clinical pilot study. J R Soc Interface 2013; 10 (84) 20130203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gavião MBD, Raymundo VG, Rentes AM. Masticatory performance and bite force in children with primary dentition. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21 (02) 146-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JW, Marcotte MR, Hönigle K, Johnson BE. A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod 1996; 66 (04) 261-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nguyen J-F, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar