COMPARISON OF FRACTURE RESISTANCE BETWEEN TWO MONOLITHIC AND ONE VENEERED ZIRCONIA MATERIALS ON MOLAR CROWNS AFTER THERMOMECHANICAL FATIGUE

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 320 - 326, 29.09.2020

Faisal Kayalı Erkut Kahramanoğlu

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.783438

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this in-vitro study is to evaluate fracture resistance of two monolithic and one veneered zirconia crowns on human molar teeth fabricated after thermomechanical fatigue.
Materials and methods: Seventy-two human molar teeth were prepared to receive zirconia crowns. The specimens were divided into three experimental groups (n=24) according to restoration design, monolithic or veneered. The crowns were fabricated from GC initial zirconia, Dentsply Sirona TZI and Dentsply Sirona ZI. The prepared teeth were scanned with Sirona inEos X5 and the restorations were milled using Cerec inLab MC X5. The crowns were cemented by resin cement. Twelve crowns of each experimental group underwent thermomechanical fatigue using chewing Simulator for 240 000 chewing cycles with load of (100 N) and thermocycling (5 °C/55 °C), the remaining 12 crowns in each group did not undergo any thermomechanical fatigue and were considered as control group. All specimens were loaded until fracture using universal testing machine. Forces were applied to occlusal surface with 90° angle. Loads of fracture were recorded. Collected data of fracture loads of all specimens were analyzed using SPSS 23.00 program.
Results: Although thermomechanical fatigue significantly decreased fracture loads of only monolithic groups, monolithic zirconia crowns had higher fracture loads than veneered one. Among all specimens, the highest fracture load was found in GC group (5001,81 N) and the lowest was found in ZI group (2117.37 N).
Conclusion: Thermomechanical fatigue has significant influence on monolithic zirconia, however, it showed higher fracture loads and can be alternative to veneered design.

Keywords

zirconia, monolithic, fracture, thermomechanical fatigue.

References

• 1. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L. Patients' satisfaction with dental esthetics. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2007;138:805-808
• 2. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. Monolithic lithium disilicate full-contour crowns bonded on CAD/CAM zirconia complete-arch implant bridges with 3 to 5 years of follow-up. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2015;41:450-458.
• 3. Lameira DP, Buarque e Silva WA, Andrade e Silva F, De Souza GM. Fracture strength of aged monolithic and bilayer zirconia-based crowns. Biomed Research International. 2015;418641.
• 4. López-Suáreza C, Castillo-Oyagüea R, Rodríguez-Alonsoa V, D. Lynchb C, Suárez-García M. Fracture load of metal-ceramic, monolithic, and bi-layered zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses after thermo-mechanical cycling. Journal of Dentistry. 2018;73:97-104.
• 5. Güngör MB, Nemli SK. Fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic ceramic and veneered zirconia molar crowns after aging in a mastication simulator. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;119(3):473-480.
• 6. Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Rosentritt M. In vitro failure and fracture resistance of veneered and full-contour zirconia restorations. Journal of Dentistry. 2012;11:921-928.
• 7. Daou E. The zirconia restoration properties: a versatile restorative material. Open Dentistry Journal. 2014;8:33-42.
• 8. Guess PC, Zavanelli RA, Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Thompson VP. Monolithic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate versus veneered Y-TZP crowns: comparison of failure modes and reliability after fatigue. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2010;25:434-442.
• 9. Sarıkaya I, Hayran Y. Effects of dynamic aging on the wear and fracture strength of monolithic zirconia restorations. BMC Oral Health. 2018;1:146.
• 10. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S. In vitro chipping behavior of all‐ceramic crowns with a zirconia framework and feldspathic veneering: comparison of CAD/CAM‐produced veneer with manually layered veneer. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2013;40:519-525.
• 11. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. British Dental Journal. 2008;204:505-511.
• 12. Silva LHD, Lima E, Miranda RBP, Favero SS, Lohbauer U, Cesar PF. Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods. Brazilian Oral Research. 2017;31:e58.
• 13. Zhang Y, Lee JJ, Srikanth R, Lawn BR, Edge chipping and flexural resistance of monolithic ceramics. Dental Materials. 2013;29(12):1201-1208.
• 14. Raut A, Rao PL, Ravindranath T. Zirconium for esthetic rehabilitation: an overview. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2011;22:140–143.
• 15. Heintze SD, Faouzi M, Rousson V, Ozcan M. Correlation of wear invivo and six laboratory wear methods. Dental Materials. 2012;28:961-973.
• 16. Dinesh KS, Anandan R, Ekanthamoorthy J. Advances in Dental-PMMA based artificial teeth through Rapid Prototyping technology. Biomedical Research. 2015;26(4):6-8.
• 17. Nakamura K, Harada A, Inagaki R, Kanno T, Niwano Y, Milleding P, Ortengren U. Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2015;73(8):602-628.
• 18. Lopez-Suarez C, Tobar C, Sola-Ruiz MF, Pelaez J, Suarez MJ. Effect of thermomechanical and static loading on the load to fracture of metal-ceramic, monolithic, and veneered zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019;28(2):171-178.
• 19. Mirmohammadi H. Aboushelib M, Salameh Z, Kleverlaan CJ. Influence of enzymatic and chemical degradation on zirconia resin bond strength after different surface treatments. American Journal of Dentistry. 2010; 23(6):327-330.
• 20. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G. Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dental Materials Journal. 2006;22(2):176-182.
• 21. Dbradović-Djuricić K1, Medić V, Dodić S, Gavrilov D, Antonijević D, Zrilić M. Dilemmas in zirconia bonding: a review. Serbian Archives of Medicine. 2013;141(5-6):395-401.
• 22. Burgess JO, Janyavula S, Lawson NC, Lucas TJ, Cakir D. Enamel wear opposing polished and aged zirconia. Operative Dentistry. 2014;39(2):189-192.
• 23. Kontos L1, Schille C, Schweizer E, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Influence of surface treatment on the wear of solid zirconia. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2013;71(3-4):482-487.
• 24. Luangruangrong P, Cook NB, Sabrah AH, Hara AT, Bottino MC. Influence of full-contour zirconia surface roughness on wear of glass-ceramics. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2014;23(3):198-205.
• 25. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, Ju SW. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. Journal of Dentistry. 2012;40(11):979-988.
• 26. Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Schmutz F, Trottmann A, Roos M, Hammerle CH. Two-body wear of monolithic, veneered and glazed zirconia and their corresponding enamel antagonists. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2013;71:102-112.
• 27. Habip SR, Alotaibi A, Hazza NA, Allam Y, AlGhazi M. Two-body wear behavior of human enamel versus monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, ceramometal and composite resin. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2019;11(1):23-31.
• 28. Ruben JL, Roeters JM, Montagner AF, Huysmans MCDNJM. A multifunctional device to simulate oral ageing: the “Rub&Roll”. Journal of Mechanical Behaviour of Biomedical Materials 2014;30:75-82.
• 29. Mitov G, Anastassova-Yoshida Y, Nothdurft FP, von See C, Pospiech P. Influence of the preparation design and artificial aging on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2016; 8(1):30-36.
• 30. Kern F, Lindner V, Gadow R. Low-temperature degradation behaviour and mechanical properties of a 3Y-TZP manufactured from detonation-synthesized powder. Journal of Ceramic Science and Technology. 2016;7(04):313-322.
• 31. Vidotti HA, Pereira JR, Insaurralde E, et al: Thermo and mechanical cycling and veneering method do not influence. Y-TZP core/veneer interface bond strength. Journal of Dentistry. 2013;41:307-312.
• 32. Borchers L, Stiesch M, Bach FW, Buhl JC, Hübsch C, Kellner T, Kohorst P, Jendras M. Influence of hydrothermal and mechanical conditions on the strength of zirconia. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2014;6(6):462–467.
• 33. Borba M, De Araújo MD, Fukushima KA, Yoshimura HN, Griggs J, Della Bona A, Cesar PF. Effect of different aging methods on the mechanical behavior of multi-layered ceramic structures. Dental Materials. 2016;32(12):1536-1542.
• 34. Yang R, Arola D, Han Z, Zhang X. A comparison of the fracture resistance of three machinable ceramics after thermal and mechanical fatigue. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014;112(4):878-885.
• 35. Kohorst P, Dittmer MP, Borchers L, Stiesch-Scholz M. Influence of cyclic fatigue in water on the load-bearing capacity of dental bridges made of zirconia. Acta Biomaterialia. 2008;4(5):1440-1447.
• 36. Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R, Liu R, Ma S, Zhou Z, Longquan S. Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2014;35:93-101.
• 37. Nordahl N, Vult von Steyern P, Larsson C. Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness. Journal of Oral Science. 2015;57(3):255-261.
• 38. Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann M. In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dental Materials Journal. 2012;28:449–456.