In Vitro Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Different Heat-Pressed All-Ceramic Crown Systems

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 47 Sayı: 1-3, 97 - 108, 31.12.2020

Yaşar Yazgan

Öz

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the mechanical strength of 3 different heat-pressed all-ceramic crown systems (Creapress, IPS Empress and Finesse) both staining and layering techniques and porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations (PFM) utilizig with crown shaped samples and a strength analysis system.
Materials and method: A total of 84 crowns were prepared for 7 groups (n=12) on metal dies, representing the maxillary right central incisor. Measurements of mechanical strength were performed at universal mechanical strength test device with 4mm steel ball force tec-nique. One-way analysis of variance and Duncan Multiple Range Test were used to compare statistical data with Minitab 12.2 (Minitab Inc., USA) program.
Results: The average mechanical strength of the tested groups ranged from 527,67±35,53 to 1649,57±125,89 N. Analysis revealed that there were significant differences in the mean mechanical strength among the groups (P<0,01). Porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations (PFM) crowns mechanical strength limits are the highest values fallowed by IPS Empress 2 crowns limits. Other pressable ceramic systems had acceptable fracture strength limits. However Creapress layering tecnique performed the lowest mechanical strength values that can cause clinical performance, longevity risks.
Conclusion: All heat-pressed all-ceramic crown systems are reliable regarding the mechanical fracture strength.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Heat-pressed all-ceramic crown systems, fracture strength, metal-ceramic crown systems

ISI İLE PRESLENEN FARKLI TAM SERAMİK KRONLARIN KIRILMA DİRENÇLERİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ısı ile preslenen 3 farklı tam seramik kron sisteminin (Creap-ress, IPS Empress ve Finesse; boyama ve tabakalama teknikleri) ve metal destekli porselen (PFM) restorasyonların mekanik direncini kron örneklerle ve güç analiz sistemi yardımıyla karşılaştırmaktır.
Gereç ve yöntem: Toplam 84 örnek, üst santral dişi yansıtan metal daylar üzerine 7 gu-rupta (n=12) hazırlandı. Mekanik direnç ölçümleri 4mm çelik bilya kuvvet tekniği ile üniver-sal mekanik direnç test cihazında gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmamızda direnç ölçümlerinden elde ettiğimiz sonuç veriler, Minitab 12.2 (Minitab Inc., USA) programı ile faktöriyel (tek yönlü) varyans analizi ve Duncan testi (Duncan Multiple Range Test) ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Grupların test edilen mekanik direnç ortalamalarının 527,67±35,53 ile1649,57±125,89 N arasında değiştiği bulundu. Analizlere göre gruplar arasında istatistik-sel olarak mekanik direnç açısından fark bulundu (P<0,01). Metal destekli porselen (PFM) restorasyonların mekanik direnç limitleri en yüksek değerler olarak tespit edildi, bu değerleri IPS Empress 1 kron örnekleri direnç limitleri takip etmektedir. Diğer preslenebilir tam se-ramik kron sistemlerinde kabul edilebilir mekanik direnç ölçümleri tespit edilmiştir. Bu bilgilere ilave olarak Creapress tabakalama tekniğinde en düşük mekanik direnç değerleri elde edilmiştir ki bu değerler, sistemin klinik performansı ve klinik kullanım süresi konusunda riskler bulunduğunu öngörmektedir.
Sonuç: araştırmada kullanılan ısı ile preslenen tam seramik kron sistemlerinin mekanik direnç açısından güvenilir olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Isı ile preslenen tam seramik kron sistemleri, kırılma direnci, metal seramik kron sistemleri

Kaynakça

• 1. Wall JG, Cipra DL. Alternative crown systems. Is the metal-ceramic crown always the restoration of choice? Dent Clin North Am 1992; 36: 765-82.
• 2. Rosenblum MA, Schulman A. A review of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 297-307
• 3. Pröbster L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Kirchner E, Kanjantra P. In vitro evaluation of a glass-ceramic restorative material. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 636-45.
• 4. Yeo IS, Yang JH, Lee JB. In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 459-64.
• 5. Felden A, Schmalz G, Hiller KA. Retrospective clinical study and survival analysis on partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years. Clin Oral Investig 1998; 4: 199-205.
• 6. Leevailoj C, Platt JA, Cochran MA, Moore BK. In vitro study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load of all-ceramic crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and other luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 699-707
• 7. Malament K, Natto Z, Thompson V, Rekow D, Eckert S, Weber H. Ten-year survival of pressed, acid-etched e.max lithium disilicate monolithic and bilayered complete-coverage restorations: Performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position and age. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121: 782-790
• 8. Ash M Jr. Wheeler’s dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB SaundersCo; 1993 p.170-217,274-331.
• 9. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Leibrock A, Schneider-Feyrer S, Handel G. In-vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of fibre-reinforced adhesive fixed partial inlay dentures. J Dent 1999; 27: 163-8.
• 10. Sulaiman F, Chai J, Jameson LM, Wozniak WT. A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10: 478-84.
• 11. Dickinson AJ, Moore BK, Harris RK, Dykema RW. A comparative study of the strength of aluminous porcelain and all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 297-304
• 12. Strub JR, Beschnidt SM. Fracture strength of 5 different all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 602-9.
• 13. Koutayas SO, Kern M, Ferraresso F, Strub JR. Influence of design and mode of loading on the fracture strength of all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 540-7.
• 14. Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Augthun, M, Spiekermann H. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate-, alumina-, and zirconia-based three-unit fixed partial dentures: a laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14: 231-8.
• 15. Yoshinari M, Derand T. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont.1994; 7: 329-38.
• 16. Groten M, ProbsterL. The influence of different cementation modes on the fracture resistance of feldspathic ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10: 169-77
• 17. Webber B, McDonald A, Knowles J. An in vitro study of the compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 154-60.
• 18. Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 652-61
• 19. Drummond JL, King TJ, Bapna MS, Koperski RD. Mechanical property evaluation of pressable restorative ceramics. Dent Mater 2000;16: 226-33
• 20. Ohyama T, Yoshinari M, OdaY. Effects of cyclic loading on the strength of all-ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 28-37
• 21. Chen HY, Hickel R, Setcos JC, Kunzelmann KH. Effects of surface finish and fatigue testing on the fracture strength of CAD-CAM and pressed-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82: 468-75.
• 22. Cho HW, Dong JK, JIn TH, Oh SC, Lee HH, Lee JW. A study on the fracture strength of implant-supported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 9-13.