RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two margin designs (shoulderless and slight chamfer) with two occlusal thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure mode of the monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty nickel-chromium dies were duplicated from the previous two prepared teeth using a three-dimensional optical scanner. Nickel-chromium supporting dies were divided into two main groups (n = 20) according to the type of margin design: group A, slight chamfer margin design and group B, shoulderless margin design. These groups were further divided into two subgroups according to the occlusal thicknesses (0.5 and 1 mm). The digital imaging of each die was done using a three-dimensional optical scanner, then zirconia blocks were milled by 5-axis machine. The crowns were cleaned by alcohol, air dried, and cemented by resin cement. Next, the crowns were subjected to 500 hot and cold cycles (30 seconds for each cycle). The samples were subjected to a static load until failure using an electronic universal testing machine and fracture resistance was recorded in Newton (N). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using the test of normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. RESULTS: The highest mean fracture load was recorded by the shoulderless (1 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (3,992.5 N), followed by shoulderless (0.5 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (3,244.4 N), and the slight chamfer (1 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (2,811 N). The lowest mean of fracture load was recorded by slight chamfer (0.5 mm occlusal thickness) subgroup (1,632.9 N). The two-way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference between the four subgroups. Regarding the fracture mode, the slight chamfer subgroups showed a severe fracture of the restoration while the shoulderless subgroups showed a fracture through the midline of the restoration. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the comparative study, shoulderless margin design has a more favorable outcome than a slight chamfer design in all thicknesses. Although the restoration with reduced occlusal thickness has lower fracture resistance than 1 mm occlusal thickness, the 0.5 mm restorations still can tolerate occlusal forces.
