Fracture resistance evaluation of CAD/CAM zirconia and composite primary molar crowns with different occlusal thicknesses
Source abstract
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of different CAD/CAM materials and occlusal thicknesses on the fracture resistance of primary molar crowns. Methods: Sixty extracted primary molar teeth were prepared and randomly divided into six experimental groups according to the material and thickness. Primary molar crowns with a central groove thickness of 0.3 and 0.5 mm were fabricated from CAD/CAM zirconia (group Z), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (group ZLS), and pre-polymerized composite resin blocks (group C). Each crown was cemented with self-adhesive resin cement on the prepared tooth. All specimens were subjected to fracture tests until fracture. Fracture load values were recorded in Newtons (N). Data were statistically analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey multiple comparison test. Results: The highest fracture load values were obtained in group Z at 0.5 mm occlusal thickness and were significantly higher compared with the other experimental groups ( p < 0.05). Although the lowest fracture load values were obtained in group ZLS at 0.3 mm occlusal thickness, all the tested CAD/CAM primary molar crowns at both thicknesses demonstrated fracture load values exceeding reported chewing force in pediatric patients. Conclusion: CAD/CAM primary molar crowns with reduced occlusal thickness may be used for the full-coverage restoration of primary molar teeth.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Health and Care Utilization · Dental Research and COVID-19
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
Funding
pamukkale üniversitesi
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.10166410.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101664 ↗
2. 10.1007/BF0332081610.1007/BF03320816 ↗
3. 10.1111/ipd.1226010.1111/ipd.12260 ↗
4. Taran PK · Pediatr Dent · 2018 · 40 · 334
5. Seale NS. · Pediatr Dent · 2002 · 24 · 501
6. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1006_1910.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1006_19 ↗
7. Zimmerman JA · Pediatr Dent · 2009 · 31 · 63
8. Walia T · Eur J Paediatr Dent · 2014 · 15 · 11310.1007/s40368-013-0072-1 ↗
9. 10.1111/ipd.1279310.1111/ipd.12793 ↗
10. Clark L · Pediatr Dent · 2016 · 38 · 42
11. Zaruba M · Int J Comput Dent · 2017 · 20 · 123
12. Stines SM · Dent Today · 2008 · 27
13. Oğuz EI · Pediatr Dent · 2022 · 44 · 368
14. 10.1007/s40368-022-00691-010.1007/s40368-022-00691-0 ↗
15. 10.4012/dmj.2016-29610.4012/dmj.2016-296 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.01010.1016/j.dental.2005.04.010 ↗
17. Townsend JA · Pediatr Dent · 2014 · 36 · 125
18. 10.1111/ipd.1295410.1111/ipd.12954 ↗
19. 10.1111/eos.1264510.1111/eos.12645 ↗
20. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.7910.4047/jap.2018.10.2.79 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.01410.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.014 ↗
22. Corbani K · Int J Comput Dent · 2020 · 23 · 225
23. Vinson LA · J Dent Oral Health Cosmesis · 2016 · 1 · 005
24. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.42310.4047/jap.2017.9.6.423 ↗
25. Braun S · Angle Orthod · 1996 · 66 · 261
26. 10.1093/ejo/cjs02110.1093/ejo/cjs021 ↗
27. 10.3109/00016357.2015.100747910.3109/00016357.2015.1007479 ↗
28. 10.13005/bpj/153810.13005/bpj/1538 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.dental.2017.01.00310.1016/j.dental.2017.01.003 ↗
30. 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80043-310.1016/0109-5641(95)80043-3 ↗
31. 10.1007/s00784-018-2473-310.1007/s00784-018-2473-3 ↗
32. 10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00045-910.1016/S0300-5712(03)00045-9 ↗
33. 10.1007/s00784-011-0606-z10.1007/s00784-011-0606-z ↗
34. 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70103-410.1016/S0022-3913(99)70103-4 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.03310.1016/j.dental.2012.04.033 ↗
36. Magne P · Int J Prosthodont · 1999 · 12 · 111
37. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.00810.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.008 ↗
38. 10.3390/ma1503114110.3390/ma15031141 ↗
39. 10.1111/eos.1217310.1111/eos.12173 ↗