The Effect of Die Material on the Crown Fracture Strength of Zirconia Crowns.

BACKGROUND: Determination of the eligibility of several tooth analog materials for use in crown fracture testing. METHODS: A standardized premolar crown preparation was replicated into three types of resin dies (C&B, low modulus 3D printed resin; OnX, high modulus 3D printed resin composite; and highest modulus milled resin composite). 0.8 mm zirconia crowns were bonded to the dies and the maximum fracture load of the crowns was tested. Twelve extracted human premolars were prepared to a standardized crown preparation, and duplicate dies of the prepared teeth were 3D printed out of C&B. Zirconia crowns were bonded to both the dies and natural teeth, and their fracture load was tested. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the fracture load of zirconia crowns bonded to standardized dies of C&B (1084.5 ± 134.2 N), OnX (1112.7 ± 109.8 N) or Lava Ultimate (1137.5 ± 88.7 N) (p = 0.580). There was no statistical difference between the fracture load of crowns bonded to dentin dies (1313 ± 240 N) and a 3D-printed resin die (C&B, 1156 ± 163 N) (p = 0.618). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the static fracture load of zirconia crowns bonded to standardized resin dies with different moduli or between a low modulus resin die and natural dentin die.

The Effect of Restoration Thickness on the Fracture Resistance of 5 mol% Yttria-Containing Zirconia Crowns.

BACKGROUND: To determine what thickness of 5 mol% yttria zirconia (5Y-Z) translucent crowns cemented with different cements and surface treatments would have equivalent fracture resistance as 3 mol% yttria (3Y-Z) crowns. METHODS: The study included 0.8 mm, 1.0 mm, and 1.2 mm thickness 5Y-Z (Katana UTML) crowns and 0.5 and 1.0 mm thickness 3Y-Z (Katana HT) crowns as controls. The 5Y-Z crowns were divided among three treatment subgroups (n = 10/subgroup): (1) cemented using RMGIC (Rely X Luting Cement), (2) alumina particle-abraded then luted with the same cement, (3) alumina particle-abraded and cemented using a resin cement (Panavia SA Cement Universal). The 3Y-Z controls were alumina particle-abraded then cemented with RMGIC. The specimens were then loaded in compression at 30° until failure. RESULTS: All 5Y-Z crowns (regardless of thickness or surface treatment) had a similar to or higher fracture force than the 0.5 mm 3Y-Z crowns. Only the 1.2 mm 5Y-Z crowns with resin cement showed significantly similar fracture force to the 1 mm 3Y-Z crowns. CONCLUSION: In order to achieve a similar fracture resistance to 0.5 mm 3Y-Z crowns cemented with RMGIC, 5Y-Z crowns may be as thin as 0.8 mm. To achieve a similar fracture resistance to 1.0 mm 3Y-Z crowns cemented with RMGIC, 5Y-Z crowns must be 1.2 mm and bonded with resin cement.

Wear of lithium disilicate opposed by various ceramic materials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare volumetric wear of lithium disilicate against different ceramic (3 mol% yttria-stabilized (3Y) zirconia, 5 mol% yttria-stabilized (5Y) zirconia, lithium disilicate, porcelain and enamel antagonists). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) specimens (n = 8/antagonist) were wet sanded to 1200grit SiC and mounted into a UAB wear device. Antagonist spheres (diameter = 4.75 mm) were made from polished 3Y zirconia, 5Y zirconia, lithium disilicate, porcelain and human enamel. A two-body wear test was performed with 20 N load and 1.5 mm slide for 400,000 cycles at 1 Hz. 33% glycerin was used as a lubricant. Wear facets were measured with optical profilometry. Wear scar areas of antagonists were measured with digital microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on wear facets and scars. Vicker's microhardness was measured of all antagonist materials. All data were compared with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences in lithium disilicate volumetric wear (mm3 ) occurred with various antagonist materials: 0.38 ± 0.01a (3Y zirconia), 0.33 ± 0.01b, (5Y zirconia), 0.16 ± 0.01c (lithium disilicate), 0.11 ± 0.03d, (enamel), and 0.07 ± 0.01e (porcelain). The lithium disilicate antagonist demonstrated a larger wear scar than other materials. Zirconia was the hardest material and enamel the least hard. CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia causes significant wear on lithium disilicate and lithium disilicate causes significant wear against itself. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When selecting a material to oppose an existing lithium disilicate crown, a porcelain or lithium disilicate surface would cause significantly less wear to the existing crown. If an existing zirconia crown exists opposed to a prepared tooth, lithium disilicate may not be an ideal material selection to restore the tooth.

Characterization of materials used for 3D printing dental crowns and hybrid prostheses.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the filler weight percentage (wt%), filler and resin composition, flexural strength, modulus, and hardness of several 3D-printed resins to direct and indirect restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four 3D-printed resins (C&B MFH, Ceramic Crown, OnX, and OnX Tough), one milled resin composite (Lava Ultimate), one conventional composite (Filtek Supreme), and one ceramic (IPS e.max CAD) were evaluated. Filler wt% was determined by the burned ash technique, and filler particle morphology and composition were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy, respectively. Organic resin composition was analyzed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Three-point bend flexural strength and modulus of the materials were determined by ISO 4049 or ISO 6872. Vickers microhardness was measured. Data were compared with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc analysis. Linear regression analysis was performed for filler wt% versus flexural strength, modulus, and hardness. RESULTS: 3D-printed resins were composed of various sized and shaped silica fillers and various types of methacrylate resins. Significant differences were found among filler wt% with some materials around 3% (C&B MFH), others between 33% and 38% (OnX Tough and OnX), others around 50% (Ceramic Crown), and some around 72% (Filtek Supreme and Lava Ultimate). All 3D-printed resins had significantly lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than the conventional and milled resin composites and ceramic material (p < 0.001). Filler wt% demonstrated a linear relationship with modulus (p = 0.013, R2 = 0.821) and hardness (p = 0.018, R2 = 0.787) but not flexural strength (p = 0.056, R2 = 0.551). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed resins contain from 3% to 50% filler content. Filler wt% alone does not affect flexural strength, but strength may be affected by resin composition as well. Although the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than milled and conventional composite and ceramic, they demonstrated nonbrittle plastic behavior. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The properties of 3D-printed resins vary based on their composition, which affects their clinical applications.

Fracture resistance of zirconia surveyed crowns with four different occlusal rest seat designs.

PURPOSE: To determine the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) zirconia surveyed crowns for a mandibular first molar without occlusal rest and with four different rest seat designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy CAD-CAM zirconia 4Y-PSZ (IPS e.max ZirCAD MT for CEREC A1, C15, Ivoclar Vivadent) crowns (14 specimens/group) were designed and fabricated with a dental chairside CAD-CAM system (CEREC PrimeScan, and CEREC MCXL Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were divided into groups according to the following rest seat designs: (1) Surveyed crown without rest seat, (2) surveyed crowns with disto-occlusal rest seat, (3) surveyed crowns with disto-occlusal extended rest seat, (4) surveyed crowns with interproximal rest seat, and (5) continuous rest seat. Crowns were treated with a primer system (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent) and cemented using resin luting cement (Multilink Automix, Ivoclar Vivadent) to resin-printed dies (Grey Resin V4, FormLabs). Subsequently, the crowns were subjected to 200,000 load cycles at 1 Hz with 20 N force and then loaded with a steel indenter until fracture. The test results were analyzed with one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and HSD Tukey post-Hoc test. RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance of surveyed crowns without and with different rest seats was significantly different from each other. Surveyed crowns with no rest seat displayed the highest resistance (4238 N) followed by crowns with continuous rest seat (3601 N), crowns with disto-occlusal extended rest seat (3283 N), and crowns with disto-occlusal rest seat (3257 N). Crowns with interproximal rest seat displayed the lowest fracture resistance (2723 N). CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed crowns without rest seats had a higher fracture resistance than crowns with rest seats Surveyed crowns with interproximal rest seats presented the lowest fracture resistance among all rest seat designs. Crowns with disto-occlusal rest seats, disto-occlusal extended rest seats, and continuous rest seats displayed similar fracture resistance.