Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns.
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014 Jul; 35:93-101.JM

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the load bearing capacity and a reasonable thicknesss of dental monolithic zirconia crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) abutment tooth specimens were made by CAD/CAM technic. Monolithic zirconia crowns (MZC), monolithic lithium disilicate crowns (MLC), layered zirconia crowns (LZC) and metal ceramic crowns(MCC), of which the occlusal thickness was 1.5mm were thereafter fabricated and cemented on the abutment tooth specimens. MCC with occlusal thicknesses of 0.6mm, 0.8mm, 1.00mm, 1.2mm were also made. All specimens underwent load-to-fracture test. Weibull parameters (σ0) and (m) were calculated. Fracture modes were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean fracture load was 1863.16±116.81 for MLC, 2284.77±355.60 for MCC, 2308.0±510.94 for LZC, 4109.93±610.18 for MZC (1.5mm), 3068.31±233.88 for MZC (1.2mm), 2429.88±315.03 for MZC (1.0mm), 1814.60±68.21 for MZC (0.8mm) and 1308.38±111.38 for MZC (0.6mm). The fracture load of MZC was significantly higher than MCC, LZC and MLC (P<0.05). The fracture loads for MCC with different thickness were significantly different (P<0.05). Similar trend was observed for the characteristic strength (σ0) and Weibull modulus (m). For MZC and MLC, the fracture mode was catastrophic failure. The predominant fracture mode for LZC was catastrophic fracture. The fracture loads of MZC(1.0mm) and MCC were not statistically different (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Monolithic zirconia crowns exhibit higher fracture loads than monolithic lithium disilicate crowns, layered zirconia crowns and metal ceramic crowns. The fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns with a thickness of 1.0mm can be equal to metal ceramic crowns. Doubling the monolithic zirconia core from 0.6mm to 1.5mm increases the fracture resistance of this restorative system threefold.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Sun T
The Medical Centre of Stomatology, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Zhou S
Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, North of Guangzhou Street, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China.
Lai R
The Medical Centre of Stomatology, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Liu R
Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, North of Guangzhou Street, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China.
Ma S
The Medical Centre of Stomatology, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Zhou Z
The Medical Centre of Stomatology, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Longquan S
Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, North of Guangzhou Street, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China. Electronic address: shaolongquan@smu.edu.cn.

MeSH

CementationCeramicsCrownsDental CementsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration FailureDental Stress AnalysisHumansLithiumMaterials TestingMetal Ceramic AlloysMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningStress, MechanicalToothWeight-BearingZirconium

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24762856

Clinical Trial Links

Gingival Inflammatory Response,Bacterial Adhesion and Patient Satisfaction of Ceramo-metallic vs Zirconia Crowns

Citation

Sun, Ting, et al. "Load-bearing Capacity and the Recommended Thickness of Dental Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns." Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 35, 2014, pp. 93-101.
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.
Sun, T., Zhou, S., Lai, R., Liu, R., Ma, S., Zhou, Z., & Longquan, S. (2014). Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 35, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.014
Sun T, et al. Load-bearing Capacity and the Recommended Thickness of Dental Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;35:93-101. PubMed PMID: 24762856.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. AU - Sun,Ting, AU - Zhou,Shanyu, AU - Lai,Renfa, AU - Liu,Ruoyu, AU - Ma,Shuyuan, AU - Zhou,Zhiying, AU - Longquan,Shao, Y1 - 2014/04/02/ PY - 2013/12/29/received PY - 2014/03/21/revised PY - 2014/03/23/accepted PY - 2014/4/26/entrez PY - 2014/4/26/pubmed PY - 2015/1/6/medline KW - Fracture load KW - Monolithic KW - Single crown KW - Thickness KW - Zirconia SP - 93 EP - 101 JF - Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials JO - J Mech Behav Biomed Mater VL - 35 N2 - PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the load bearing capacity and a reasonable thicknesss of dental monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) abutment tooth specimens were made by CAD/CAM technic. Monolithic zirconia crowns (MZC), monolithic lithium disilicate crowns (MLC), layered zirconia crowns (LZC) and metal ceramic crowns(MCC), of which the occlusal thickness was 1.5mm were thereafter fabricated and cemented on the abutment tooth specimens. MCC with occlusal thicknesses of 0.6mm, 0.8mm, 1.00mm, 1.2mm were also made. All specimens underwent load-to-fracture test. Weibull parameters (σ0) and (m) were calculated. Fracture modes were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean fracture load was 1863.16±116.81 for MLC, 2284.77±355.60 for MCC, 2308.0±510.94 for LZC, 4109.93±610.18 for MZC (1.5mm), 3068.31±233.88 for MZC (1.2mm), 2429.88±315.03 for MZC (1.0mm), 1814.60±68.21 for MZC (0.8mm) and 1308.38±111.38 for MZC (0.6mm). The fracture load of MZC was significantly higher than MCC, LZC and MLC (P<0.05). The fracture loads for MCC with different thickness were significantly different (P<0.05). Similar trend was observed for the characteristic strength (σ0) and Weibull modulus (m). For MZC and MLC, the fracture mode was catastrophic failure. The predominant fracture mode for LZC was catastrophic fracture. The fracture loads of MZC(1.0mm) and MCC were not statistically different (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Monolithic zirconia crowns exhibit higher fracture loads than monolithic lithium disilicate crowns, layered zirconia crowns and metal ceramic crowns. The fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns with a thickness of 1.0mm can be equal to metal ceramic crowns. Doubling the monolithic zirconia core from 0.6mm to 1.5mm increases the fracture resistance of this restorative system threefold. SN - 1878-0180 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24762856/Load_bearing_capacity_and_the_recommended_thickness_of_dental_monolithic_zirconia_single_crowns_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -