CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 209-214
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735427
Original Article

Fracture Strength of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns with Modified Vertical Preparation: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Marwah Ismael Abdulazeez
1   Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq
,
Manhal A. Majeed
1   Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different marginal designs (deep chamfer, vertical, and modified vertical with reverse shoulder) on the fracture strength and failure modes of monolithic zirconia crowns.

Materials and Methods Thirty sound human maxillary first premolar teeth with comparable size were used in this study. The teeth were divided randomly into three groups according to the preparation design (n = 10): (1) group A: teeth prepared with a deep chamfer finish line; (2) group B: teeth prepared with vertical preparation; and (3) group C: teeth prepared with modified vertical preparation, where a reverse shoulder of 1 mm was placed on the buccal surface at the junction of middle and occlusal thirds. All samples were scanned by using an intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona, Germany), and then the crowns were designed by using Sirona InLab 20.0 software and milled with a 5-axis machine. Each crown was then cemented on its respective tooth with self-adhesive resin cement by using a custom-made cementation device. A single load to failure test was used to assess the fracture load of each crown by using a computerized universal testing machine that automatically recorded the fracture load of each sample in Newton (N).

Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed statistically by using one-way analysis of variance test and Bonferroni test at a level of significance of 0.05.

Results The highest mean of fracture load was recorded by chamfer (2,969.8 N), which followed by modified vertical (2,899.3 N) and the lowest mean of fracture load was recorded by vertical (2,717.9 N). One-way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference among the three groups. Bonferroni test showed a significant difference between group A and group B, while a nonsignificant difference was revealed between group C with group A and group B.

Conclusion Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the mean values of fracture strength of monolithic zirconia crowns of all groups were higher than the maximum occlusal forces in the premolar region. The modification of the vertical preparation with a reverse shoulder placed at the buccal surface improved the fracture strength up to the point that it was statistically nonsignificant with the chamfer group.



Publication History

Article published online:
30 November 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 
  • References

  • 1 Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92 (06) 557-562
  • 2 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. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (01) 30-36
  • 3 Nakamura K, Harada A, Inagaki R. et al. Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73 (08) 602-608
  • 4 Sorrentino R, Triulzio C, Tricarico MG, Bonadeo G, Gherlone EF, Ferrari M. In vitro analysis of the fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia molar crowns with different occlusal thickness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 61: 328-333
  • 5 Jasim HH, Findakly MB, Mahdi NA, Mutar MT. Effect of reduced occlusal thickness with two margin designs on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (02) 245-249
  • 6 Ramos RM, Clark D, Mazza M. et al. The shoulderless approach: a new rationale in prosthetic dentistry. Tomorrow Tooth J 2017; 1: 1-29
  • 7 Schmitt J, Wichmann M, Holst S, Reich S. Restoring severely compromised anterior teeth with zirconia crowns and feather-edged margin preparations: a 3-year follow-up of a prospective clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23 (02) 107-109
  • 8 Poggio CE, Dosoli R, Ercoli C. A retrospective analysis of 102 zirconia single crowns with knife-edge margins. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107 (05) 316-321
  • 9 Schmitz JH, Cortellini D, Granata S, Valenti M. Monolithic lithium disilicate complete single crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior region: a multicentric retrospective study up to 12 years. Quintessence Int 2017; 48 (08) 601-608
  • 10 Paniz G, Nart J, Gobbato L. et al. Clinical periodontal response to anterior all-ceramic crowns with either chamfer or feather-edge subgingival tooth preparations: six-month results and patient perception. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017; 37 (01) 61-68
  • 11 Schmitz JH, Beani M. Effect of different cement types on monolithic lithium disilicate complete crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior region. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (06) 678-683
  • 12 Pang Z, Chughtai A, Sailer I, Zhang Y. A fractographic study of clinically retrieved zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (10) 1198-1206
  • 13 Burke FJT. Maximising the fracture resistance of dentine-bonded all-ceramic crowns. J Dent 1999; 27 (03) 169-173
  • 14 Rafferty BT, Janal MN, Zavanelli RA. et al. Design features of a three-dimensional molar crown and related maximum principal stress. A finite element model study. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) 156-163
  • 15 Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, Laviole O. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 110 (06) 447-454.e10
  • 16 Kasem AT, Sakrana AA, Ellayeh M, Özcan M. Evaluation of zirconia and zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic systems fabricated for minimal invasive preparations using a novel standardization method. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; 32 (06) 560-568
  • 17 Reich S, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of ZrO2 copings. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99 (05) 369-376
  • 18 Jalalian E, Rostami R, Atashkar B. Comparison of chamfer and deep chamfer preparation designs on the fracture resistance of zirconia core restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2011; 5 (02) 41-45
  • 19 Aboushelib MN. Fatigue and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns prepared with different finish line designs. J Prosthodont 2012; 21 (01) 22-27
  • 20 Cortellini D, Canale A, Souza RO, Campos F, Lima JC, Özcan M. Durability and weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate crowns bonded on abutments with knife-edge and large chamfer finish lines after cyclic loading. J Prosthodont 2015; 24 (08) 615-619
  • 21 Miura S, Kasahara S, Yamauchi S, Egusa H. Effect of finish line design on stress distribution in bilayer and monolithic zirconia crowns: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. Eur J Oral Sci 2018; 126 (02) 159-165
  • 22 Skjold A, Schriwer C, Øilo M. Effect of margin design on fracture load of zirconia crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 2019; 127 (01) 89-96
  • 23 Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R. et al. Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014; 35: 93-101
  • 24 Ozer F, Naden A, Turp V, Mante F, Sen D, Blatz MB. Effect of thickness and surface modifications on flexural strength of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (06) 987-993
  • 25 Cagidiaco EF, Discepoli N, Goracci C, Carboncini F, Vigolo P, Ferrari M. Randomized clinical trial on single zirconia crowns with feather-edge vs chamfer finish lines: four-year results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2019; 39 (06) 817-826
  • 26 Beuer F, Aggstaller H, Edelhoff D, Gernet W. Effect of preparation design on the fracture resistance of zirconia crown copings. Dent Mater J 2008; 27 (03) 362-367
  • 27 Costa A, Xavier T, Noritomi P, Saavedra G, Borges A. The influence of elastic modulus of inlay materials on stress distribution and fracture of premolars. Oper Dent 2014; 39 (04) E160-E170
  • 28 Külünk Ş, Külünk T, Kavut I, Saraç D, Kunt GE. Fracture strength of surface treated zirconia based multilayer CAD/CAM ceramic crowns. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci 2017; 23 (03) 174-183
  • 29 Findakly MB, Jasim HH. Influence of preparation design on fracture resistance of different monolithic zirconia crowns: a comparative study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11 (06) 324-330
  • 30 Cotes C, Arata A, Melo RM, Bottino MA, Machado JP, Souza RO. Effects of aging procedures on the topographic surface, structural stability, and mechanical strength of a ZrO2-based dental ceramic. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (12) e396-e404
  • 31 Flinn BD, Raigrodski AJ, Mancl LA, Toivola R, Kuykendall T. Influence of aging on flexural strength of translucent zirconia for monolithic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (02) 303-309
  • 32 Almansour HM, Alqahtani F. The effect of in vitro aging and fatigue on the flexural strength of monolithic high-translucency zirconia restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (07) 867-873
  • 33 Shahrbaf S, van R Noort, Mirzakouchaki B, Ghassemieh E, Martin N. Fracture strength of machined ceramic crowns as a function of tooth preparation design and the elastic modulus of the cement. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (02) 234-241
  • 34 Ivoclar Vivadent. IPS e.max ZirCAD. Technical product profile. Available at: https://mena.ivoclarvivadent.com/en-me/p/all/ips-e_max-system-technicians/ips-emax-zircad. Accessed 2017
  • 35 Shahmiri R, Standard OC, Hart JN, Sorrell CC. Optical properties of zirconia ceramics for esthetic dental restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (01) 36-46