Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture resistance of aluminium oxide and lithium disilicate-based crowns using different luting cements: an in vitro study.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009 Mar 01; 10(2):51-8.JC

Abstract

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of two types of ceramic crowns cemented with two different cements.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Forty premolar crowns were fabricated using lithium-disilicate (IPS Empress-2) and glass-infiltrated aluminium-oxide (In-Ceram) ceramic systems. The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10) with Group 1 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 2 (In-Ceram) cemented with glass ionomer cement. Group 3 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 4 (In-Ceram) were cemented with resin cement. Crowns were tested in a universal testing machine at a compressive-load speed of 10 mm/min. Fracture modes were grouped into five categories. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to detect statistical significances (p<0.05).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) fracture resistance (Newtons) for Groups 1 to 4 were: 245.35 (82.69), 390.48 (67.03), 269.69 (10.33), and 418.36 (26.24). The cement type had no statistical significant effect (p>0.05) on fracture resistance within each ceramic system tested. In-Ceram crowns cemented with either glass ionomer or resin cements exhibited a statistically significantly higher fracture-resistance than IPS Empress-2 crowns (p<0.05). Minimal fracture in the test crowns was the common mode exhibited.

CONCLUSION

Fracture resistance of IPS Empress-2 and In-Ceram crowns was not affected by the type of cement used for luting.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Both In-Ceram and IPS Empress-2 crowns can be successfully luted with the cements tested with In-Ceram exhibiting higher fracture resistance than IPS Empress-2.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. ahed@just.edu.joNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19279972

Citation

Al-Wahadni, Ahed M., et al. "Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns Using Different Luting Cements: an in Vitro Study." The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, vol. 10, no. 2, 2009, pp. 51-8.
Al-Wahadni AM, Hussey DL, Grey N, et al. Fracture resistance of aluminium oxide and lithium disilicate-based crowns using different luting cements: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009;10(2):51-8.
Al-Wahadni, A. M., Hussey, D. L., Grey, N., & Hatamleh, M. M. (2009). Fracture resistance of aluminium oxide and lithium disilicate-based crowns using different luting cements: an in vitro study. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 10(2), 51-8.
Al-Wahadni AM, et al. Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns Using Different Luting Cements: an in Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009 Mar 1;10(2):51-8. PubMed PMID: 19279972.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture resistance of aluminium oxide and lithium disilicate-based crowns using different luting cements: an in vitro study. AU - Al-Wahadni,Ahed M, AU - Hussey,David L, AU - Grey,Nicholas, AU - Hatamleh,Muhanad M, Y1 - 2009/03/01/ PY - 2009/3/13/entrez PY - 2009/3/13/pubmed PY - 2009/6/26/medline SP - 51 EP - 8 JF - The journal of contemporary dental practice JO - J Contemp Dent Pract VL - 10 IS - 2 N2 - AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of two types of ceramic crowns cemented with two different cements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty premolar crowns were fabricated using lithium-disilicate (IPS Empress-2) and glass-infiltrated aluminium-oxide (In-Ceram) ceramic systems. The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10) with Group 1 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 2 (In-Ceram) cemented with glass ionomer cement. Group 3 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 4 (In-Ceram) were cemented with resin cement. Crowns were tested in a universal testing machine at a compressive-load speed of 10 mm/min. Fracture modes were grouped into five categories. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to detect statistical significances (p<0.05). RESULTS: The mean (SD) fracture resistance (Newtons) for Groups 1 to 4 were: 245.35 (82.69), 390.48 (67.03), 269.69 (10.33), and 418.36 (26.24). The cement type had no statistical significant effect (p>0.05) on fracture resistance within each ceramic system tested. In-Ceram crowns cemented with either glass ionomer or resin cements exhibited a statistically significantly higher fracture-resistance than IPS Empress-2 crowns (p<0.05). Minimal fracture in the test crowns was the common mode exhibited. CONCLUSION: Fracture resistance of IPS Empress-2 and In-Ceram crowns was not affected by the type of cement used for luting. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both In-Ceram and IPS Empress-2 crowns can be successfully luted with the cements tested with In-Ceram exhibiting higher fracture resistance than IPS Empress-2. SN - 1526-3711 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19279972/Fracture_resistance_of_aluminium_oxide_and_lithium_disilicate_based_crowns_using_different_luting_cements:_an_in_vitro_study_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -