• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.65-72
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance under chewing simulation of implant-supported posterior restorations (crowns cemented to hybrid-abutments) made of different all-ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Monolithic zirconia (MZr) and monolithic lithium disilicate (MLD) crowns for mandibular first molar were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology and then cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments (Ti-based). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10): (A) control group, crowns were subjected to single load to fracture; (B) test group, crowns underwent chewing simulation using multiple loads for 1.2 million cycles at 1.2 Hz with simultaneous thermocycling between $5^{\circ}C$ and $55^{\circ}C$. Data was statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and a Post-Hoc test. RESULTS. All tested crowns survived chewing simulation resulting in 100% survival rate. However, wear facets were observed on all the crowns at the occlusal contact point. Fracture load of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns was statistically significantly lower than that of monolithic zirconia crowns. Also, fracture load was significantly reduced in both of the all-ceramic materials after exposure to chewing simulation and thermocycling. Crowns of all test groups exhibited cohesive fracture within the monolithic crown structure only, and no abutment fractures or screw loosening were observed. CONCLUSION. When supported by implants, monolithic zirconia restorations cemented to hybrid abutments withstand masticatory forces. Also, fatigue loading accompanied by simultaneous thermocycling significantly reduces the strength of both of the all-ceramic materials. Moreover, further research is needed to define potentials, limits, and long-term serviceability of the materials and hybrid abutments.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.12-20
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic all-ceramic crowns according to the thickness (0.5mm, 0.8mm, 1.1mm) and metal-ceramic crowns (1.0mm, 1.5mm) Material and method: Twelve crowns for each of 3 zirconia crown groups were fabricated using CAD/CAM system (Kavo, Germany) and twelve crowns for each of 2 metal-ceramic crown groups were made by the conventional method. All crowns were luted to the metal dies using resin cement. Half of the specimens were exposed to thermocycling ($5-55^{\circ}C$, 1 Hz) and cyclic loading (300,000 cycles, 50N). Subsequently, all crowns were mounted on the testing jig in a universal testing machine. The load was directed at the center of crown with perpendicular to the long axis of each specimen until catastrophic failure occurred. Analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparison test (P<.05) were used for statistical analysis of all groups, and paired t-test (P<.05) was followed for statistical comparison between each groups' fracture load before and after cyclic loading. Results: 1. The fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic crowns and the metal-ceramic crown increased as thickness increased (P<.05). 2. The cyclic loading and thermocycling significantly decreased the fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic crowns (P<.05). 3. The standard deviation of fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic crowns was very low. Conclusion: The fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic crowns for the posterior area tends to be higher with thickness increased and 0.8mm or over in thickness is recommended to have similar or over the fracture strength of metal-ceramic crowns.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.475-483
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of various cement types on the stress distribution in monolithic zirconia crowns under maximum bite force using the finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The models of the prepared #46 crown (deep chamfer margin) were scanned and solid models composed of the monolithic zirconia crown, cement layer, and prepared tooth were produced using the computer-aided design technology and were subsequently translated into 3-dimensional finite element models. Four models were prepared according to different cement types (zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, glass ionomer, and resin). A load of 700 N was applied vertically on the crowns (8 loading points). Maximum principal stress was determined. RESULTS. Zinc phosphate cement had a greater stress concentration in the cement layer, while polycarboxylate cement had a greater stress concentration on the distal surface of the monolithic zirconia crown and abutment tooth. Resin cement and glass ionomer cement showed similar patterns, but resin cement showed a lower stress distribution on the lingual and mesial surface of the cement layer. CONCLUSION. The test results indicate that the use of different luting agents that have various elastic moduli has an impact on the stress distribution of the monolithic zirconia crowns, cement layers, and abutment tooth. Resin cement is recommended for the luting agent of the monolithic zirconia crowns.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.157-164
• /
• 2006

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic all-ceramic crowns according to the thickness(0.5 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.1 mm) and IPS Empress II ceramic crown of 1.5 mm thickness. Material and method: Eight crowns for each of 3 zirconia crown groups were fabricated using CAD/CAM system(Kavo, Germany) and eight Empress II crowns were made from silicone mold and wax pattern. Each crown group was finished in accordance with the specific manufacturer s instruction. All crowns were luted to the metal dies using resin cement and mounted on the testing jig in a universal testing machine. The load was directed at the center of crown with perpendicular to the long axis of each specimen until catastrophic failure occurred. Analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparison test(p<.05) were applied to the data. Results and Conclusion: 1. The fracture strength of the zirconia monolithic all-ceramic crown was higher thickness increased(p<.05). 2 The fracture strength of 1.1 mm thickness zirconia monolithic all-ceramic crown was higher than the fracture strength of 1.5 mm thickness IPS Empress II crown(p<.05). 3. The fracture strength of 0.5 mm thickness zirconia monolithic all-ceramic crown exceeded maximum occlusal forces.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.30-36
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and fracture behavior of monolithic zirconia crowns in accordance with the preparation design and aging simulation method. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An upper first molar was prepared sequentially with three different preparation designs: shoulderless preparation, 0.4 mm chamfer and 0.8 mm chamfer preparation. For each preparation design, 30 monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated. After cementation on Cr-Co alloy dies, the following artificial aging procedures were performed: (1) thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML): 5000 cycles of thermal cycling $5^{\circ}C-55^{\circ}C$ and chewing simulation (1,200,000 cycles, 50 N); (2) Low Temperature Degradation simulation (LTD): autoclave treatment at $137^{\circ}C$, 2 bar for 3 hours and chewing simulation; and (3) no pre-treatment (control group). After artificial aging, the crowns were loaded until fracture. RESULTS. The mean values of fracture resistance varied between 3414 N (LTD; 0.8 mm chamfer preparation) and 5712 N (control group; shoulderless preparation). Two-way ANOVA analysis showed a significantly higher fracture loads for the shoulderless preparation, whereas no difference was found between the chamfer preparations. In contrast to TCML, after LTD simulation the fracture strength of monolithic zirconia crowns decreased significantly. CONCLUSION. The monolithic crowns tested in this study showed generally high fracture load values. Preparation design and LTD simulation had a significant influence on the fracture strength of monolithic zirconia crowns.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.269-280
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of thickness reduction and fatigue on the failure load of monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 140 CAD-CAM fabricated crowns (3Y-TZP, inCorisTZI, Dentsply-Sirona) with different ceramic thicknesses (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5 mm, respectively, named G2, G1.5, G1, G0.8, and G0.5) were investigated. Dies of a mandibular first molar were made of composite resin. The zirconia crowns were luted with a resin composite cement (RelyX Unicem 2 Automix, 3M ESPE). Half of the specimens (n = 14 per group) were mouth-motion-fatigued (1.2 million cycles, 1.6 Hz, 200 N/ 5 - 55℃, groups named G2-F, G1.5-F, G1-F, G0.8-F, and G0.5-F). Single-load to failure was performed using a universal testing-machine. Fracture modes were analyzed. Data were statistically analyzed using a Weibull 2-parameter distribution (90% CI) to determine the characteristic strength and Weibull modulus differences among the groups. RESULTS. Three crowns (21%) of G0.8 and five crowns (36%) of G0.5 showed cracks after fatigue. Characteristic strength was the highest for G2, followed by G1.5. Intermediate values were observed for G1 and G1-F, followed by significantly lower values for G0.8, G0.8-F, and G0.5, and the lowest for G0.5-F. Weibull modulus was the lowest for G0.8, intermediate for G0.8-F and G0.5, and significantly higher for the remaining groups. Fatigue only affected G0.5-F. CONCLUSION. Reduced crown thickness lead to reduced characteristic strength, even under failure loads that exceed physiological chewing forces. Fatigue significantly reduced the failure load of 0.5 mm monolithic 3Y-TZP crowns.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.283-290
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical applicability of monolithic zirconia (MZ) crowns of different thickness via determination of fracture resistance and marginal fit. MATERIALS AND METHODS. MZ crowns with 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.5 mm thickness and porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns were prepared, ten crowns in each group. Marginal gaps of the crowns were measured. All crowns were aged with thermal cycling (5 - 55℃/10000 cycle) and chewing simulator (50 N/1 Hz/lateral movement: 2 mm, mouth opening: 2 mm/240000 cycles). After aging, fracture resistance of crowns was determined. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HDS post hoc test. RESULTS. Fracture loads were higher in the PFM and 1 mm MZ crowns compared to 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm crowns. 1.5 mm MZ crowns were not broken even with the highest force applied (10 kN). All marginal gap values were below 86 ㎛ even in the PFM crowns, and PFM crowns had a higher marginal gap than the MZ crowns. CONCLUSION. The monolithic zirconia exhibited high fracture resistance and good marginal fit even with the 0.5 mm thickness, which might be used with reduced occlusal thickness and be beneficial in challengingly narrow interocclusal space.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.6
• /
• pp.423-431
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The goal of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistances of various monolithic crowns fabricated by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) with different thickness. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Test dies were fabricated as mandibular molar forms with occlusal reductions using CAD/CAM. With different occlusal thickness (1.0 or 1.5 mm), a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (Enamic, EN), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Suprinity, SU and Celtra-Duo, CD) were used to fabricate molar crowns. Lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, EM) crowns (occlusal: 1.5 mm) were fabricated as control. Seventy crowns (n=10 per group) were bonded to abutments and stored in water for 24 hours. A universal testing machine was used to apply load to crown until fracture. The fractured specimens were examined with a scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS. The type of ceramics and the occlusal thickness showed a significant interaction. With a recommended thickness (1.5 mm), the SU revealed the mean load similar to the EM, higher compared with those of the EN and CD. The fracture loads in a reduced thickness (1.0 mm) were similar among the SU, CD, and EN. The mean fracture load of the SU and CD enhanced significantly when the occlusal thickness increased, whereas that of the EN did not. CONCLUSION. The fracture loads of monolithic crowns were differently influenced by the changes in occlusal thickness, depending on the type of ceramics. Within the limitations of this study, all the tested crowns withstood the physiological masticatory loads both at the recommended and reduced occlusal thickness.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.6
• /
• pp.324-330
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and modes of fracture of monolithic zirconia crowns with two preparation designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty human maxillary first premolar teeth were extracted for orthodontic purposes and divided into two main groups (n=20): Group A: monolithic traditional zirconia; Group B: monolithic translucent zirconia. The groups were further subdivided into two subgroups (n=10): (A1, B1) shoulder margin design; (A2, B2) feather-edge margin design. Teeth were prepared with either a 1 mm shoulder margin design or a feather-edge margin design. The prepared teeth were scanned using a digital intraoral scanner. The crowns were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement. All cemented teeth were stored in water for 7 days and thermocycling was done before testing. All samples were subjected to compressive axial loading until fracture. The fractographic analysis was done to assess the modes of fracture of the tested samples. RESULTS. The highest mean values of fracture resistance were recorded in kilo-newton and were in the order of subgroup A1 (2.903); subgroup A2 (2.3); subgroup B1 (1.854) and subgroup B2 (1.523). One-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference among the 4 subgroups. Concerning modes of fracture, the majority of samples in subgroups A1 and B1 were fracture of restoration and/or tooth, while in subgroups A2 and B2, the majority of samples fractured through the central fossa. CONCLUSION. Even though all the tested crowns fractured at a higher level than the maximum occlusal forces, the shoulder margin design was better than the feather-edge margin design and the monolithic traditional zirconia was better than the monolithic translucent zirconia in terms of fracture strength.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.79-84
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. All-ceramic restorations required extensive tooth preparation. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate a minimally invasive preparation and thickness of monolithic zirconia crowns, which would provide sufficient mechanical endurance and strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Crowns with thickness of 0.2 mm (group 0.2, n=32) or of 0.5 mm (group 0.5, n=32) were milled from zirconia and fixed with resin-based adhesives (groups 0.2A, 0.5A) or zinc phosphate cements (groups 0.2C, 0.5C). Half of the samples in each subgroup (n=8) underwent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML)(TC: $5^{\circ}C$ and $55^{\circ}C$, $2{\times}3,000cycles$, 2 min/cycle; ML: 50 N, $1.2{\times}10^6cycles$), while the other samples were stored in water ($37^{\circ}C/24h$). Survival rates were compared (Kaplan-Maier). The specimens surviving TCML were loaded to fracture and the maximal fracture force was determined (ANOVA; Bonferroni; ${\alpha}=.05$). The fracture mode was analyzed. RESULTS. In both 0.5 groups, all crowns survived TCML, and the comparison of fracture strength among crowns with and without TCML showed no significant difference (P=.628). Four crowns in group 0.2A and all of the crowns in group 0.2C failed during TCML. The fracture strength after 24 hours of the cemented 0.2 mm-thick crowns was significantly lower than that of adhesive bonded crowns. All cemented crowns provided fracture in the crown, while about 80% of the adhesively bonded crowns fractured through crown and die. CONCLUSION. 0.5 mm thick monolithic crowns possessed sufficient strength to endure physiologic performance, regardless of the type of cementation. Fracture strength of the 0.2 mm cemented crowns was too low for clinical application.