Effect of different preparation designs and all ceramic materials on fracture strength of molar endocrowns
Source abstract
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to compare the fracture strength of Molar endocrowns fabricated from different all-ceramic materials and various preparation designs. Materials and methods: Ninety extracted human molar teeth were root canal treated and randomly divided into three groups according to the all ceramic materials used for fabrication of the endocrowns ( n = 30): (1) Lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press); (2) Polymer infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic); (3) High translucency zirconia (Ceramill Zolid HT). Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups ( n = 10) according to the preparation design as 2 mm occlusal reduction, 4.5 mm occlusal reduction, and 4.5 mm occlusal reduction with 2 mm radicular extension. The endocrowns from each material were fabricated and surface treated according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. After cementation with self-adhesive resin luting cement, the specimens were stored in a humid environment for 72 hours and subsequently subjected to 5000 thermal cycles. After, a compressive, static-axial load was applied using a universal testing machine until failure. Load-to-failure was recorded (N) and the specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the failure type. The data was statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests at p < 0.05. Results: The Lithium Disilicate endocrowns recorded the higher mean fracture strength for 4.5 mm occlusal thickness and 2 mm radicular extension at 3770.28 N and 3877.40 correspondingly. The High translucency zirconia endocrowns at conventional 2 mm thickness showed the highest mean fracture load (3533.34 N). Even though polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrowns displayed comparatively lesser fracture load; they recorded the predominantly favorable fractures. Conclusions: Increased occlusal thickness showed a significant improvement in fracture strength of lithium disilicate and polymer infiltrated ceramic molar endocrowns. Although the 2 mm radicular extension had the substantial enhancement of fracture strength in high translucency zirconia, it resulted in more unfavorable failure types.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Trauma and Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.00610.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.006 ↗
2. Bindl A · J Adhes Dent · 1999 · 1 · 255
3. Lander E · Quintessence Int · 2008 · 39 · 99
4. 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90438-310.1016/0022-3913(94)90438-3 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.00510.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.005 ↗
6. Gohring TN · Am J Dent · 2003 · 16 · 313
7. Mörmann WH · Int J Prosthodont · 1998 · 11 · 333
8. Tsai YL · Int J Prosthodont · 1998 · 11 · 27
9. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.02310.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.023 ↗
10. Pissis P. · Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent · 1995 · 7 · 83
11. 10.1016/S1991-7902(09)60016-710.1016/S1991-7902(09)60016-7 ↗
12. 10.2341/11-105-L10.2341/11-105-L ↗
13. 10.3109/00016357.2013.82209810.3109/00016357.2013.822098 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.00910.1016/j.dental.2015.09.009 ↗
15. VITA-Zahnfabrik. VITA ENAMIC® Technical | scientific documentation, https://www.vita-zahnfabrik.com/en/VITA-ENAMIC-24970.html (Accessed 21 June, 2019).
16. Altier M · Niger J Clin Pract · 2018 · 21 · 82110.4103/njcp.njcp_175_17 ↗
17. 10.1111/jerd.1248610.1111/jerd.12486 ↗
18. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.114910.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.00710.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.007 ↗
20. Tribst JP · J Clin Exp Dent · 2019 · 11 · e969
21. 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-238010.5005/jp-journals-10024-2380 ↗
22. 10.1039/C6RA28847B10.1039/C6RA28847B ↗
23. 10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00281.x10.1111/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00281.x ↗
24. 10.3390/ma1216252810.3390/ma12162528 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.01110.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.011 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.dental.2016.01.00410.1016/j.dental.2016.01.004 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.02510.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.025 ↗
28. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.42310.4047/jap.2017.9.6.423 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.02.00210.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.02.002 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0020-7403(01)00016-910.1016/S0020-7403(01)00016-9 ↗
31. Hasan I · J Dent Biomech · 2012 · 3
32. 10.1186/s12903-019-0865-710.1186/s12903-019-0865-7 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.01410.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.014 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.008.10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.008. ↗
35. 10.4103/jips.jips_168_1810.4103/jips.jips_168_18 ↗
36. 10.4012/dmj.2017-03510.4012/dmj.2017-035 ↗
37. 10.1155/2017/563868310.1155/2017/5638683 ↗
38. 10.2341/16-097-L10.2341/16-097-L ↗
39. 10.1111/jopr.1249910.1111/jopr.12499 ↗