Bakitian Fahad, Seweryniak Przemek, Papia Evaggelia, Larsson Christel, Vult von Steyern Per
Department of Materials Science and Technology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018 Mar 28;10:51-60. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S157118. eCollection 2018.
The aim of this study was to describe different designs of semimonolithic crowns made of translucent and high-translucent zirconia materials and to evaluate the effect on fracture resistance and fracture mode.
One hundred crowns with different designs were produced and divided into five groups (n=20): monolithic (M), partially veneered monolithic (semimonolithic) with 0.3 mm buccal veneer (SM0.3), semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer (SM0.5), semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer supported by wave design (SMW), and semimonolithic with 0.5 mm buccal veneer supported by occlusal cap design (SMC). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10) according to the materials used, translucent and high-translucent zirconia. All crowns underwent artificial aging before loading until fracture. Fracture mode analysis was performed. Fracture loads and fracture modes were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Fisher's exact probability tests (≤0.05).
SM0.3 design showed highest fracture loads with no significant difference compared to M and SMW designs (>0.05). SM0.5 design showed lower fracture loads compared to SMW and SWC designs. Crowns made of translucent zirconia showed higher fracture loads compared to those made of high-translucent zirconia. M, SM0.3, and all but one of the SMC crowns showed complete fractures with significant differences in fracture mode compared to SMW and SM0.5 crowns with cohesive veneer fractures (≤0.05).
Translucent and high-translucent zirconia crowns might be used in combination with 0.3 mm microcoating porcelain layer with semimonolithic design to enhance the esthetic properties of restorations without significantly decreasing fracture resistance of the crowns. If 0.5 mm porcelain layer is needed for a semimonolithic crown, wave design or cap design might be used to increase fracture resistance. In both cases, fracture resistance gained is likely to be clinically sufficient as the registered fracture loads were high in relation to expected loads under clinical use.
本研究旨在描述由半透明和高透明氧化锆材料制成的半全瓷冠的不同设计,并评估其对抗折性和骨折模式的影响。
制作了100个不同设计的牙冠,并分为五组(n = 20):全瓷冠(M)、颊侧贴面厚度为0.3 mm的部分贴面全瓷冠(半全瓷冠,SM0.3)、颊侧贴面厚度为0.5 mm的半全瓷冠(SM0.5)、采用波浪设计支撑颊侧贴面厚度为0.5 mm的半全瓷冠(SMW)以及采用咬合帽设计支撑颊侧贴面厚度为0.5 mm的半全瓷冠(SMC)。根据使用的材料,每组又分为两个亚组(n = 10),即半透明氧化锆和高透明氧化锆。所有牙冠在加载直至骨折前都进行了人工老化处理。进行了骨折模式分析。使用双向方差分析和Fisher精确概率检验(≤0.05)分析骨折载荷和骨折模式。
SM0.3设计显示出最高的骨折载荷,与M和SMW设计相比无显著差异(>0.05)。与SMW和SMC设计相比,SM0.5设计显示出较低的骨折载荷。由半透明氧化锆制成的牙冠比由高透明氧化锆制成的牙冠显示出更高的骨折载荷。M、SM0.3以及除一个之外的所有SMC牙冠均显示完全骨折,与具有粘结性贴面骨折的SMW和SM0.5牙冠相比,骨折模式存在显著差异(≤0.05)。
半透明和高透明氧化锆牙冠可与厚度为0.3 mm的微涂层瓷层结合使用,采用半全瓷设计,以增强修复体的美学性能,同时不会显著降低牙冠的抗折性。如果半全瓷冠需要0.5 mm的瓷层,可以采用波浪设计或帽设计来增加抗折性。在这两种情况下,获得的抗折性在临床上可能是足够的,因为记录的骨折载荷相对于临床使用中的预期载荷较高。