Effect of cements on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns

Abstract

Objectives The present study investigated the effect of cements on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns in relation to their compressive strength. Materials and methods Four different cements were tested: zinc phosphate cement (ZPC), glass-ionomer cement (GIC), self-adhesive resin-based cement (SRC) and resin-based cement (RC). RC was used in both dual cure mode (RC-D) and chemical cure mode (RC-C). First, the compressive strength of each cement was tested according to a standard (ISO 9917-1:2004). Second, load-to-failure test was performed to analyze the crown fracture resistance. CAD/CAM-produced monolithic zirconia crowns with a minimal thickness of 0.5 mm were prepared and cemented to dies with each cement. The crown–die samples were loaded until fracture. Results The compressive strength of SRC, RC-D and RC-C was significantly higher than those of ZPC and GIC (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the fracture load of the crown between the groups. Conclusion The values achieved in the load-to-failure test suggest that monolithic zirconia crowns with a minimal thickness of 0.5 mm may have good resistance against fracture regardless of types of cements.

Fracture behavior, marginal gap width, and marginal quality of vented or pre‐cemented CAD/CAM all‐ceramic crowns luted on Y‐TZP implants

“…The observation that the cement material did not influence fracture load of both crown materials, LS 2 and ZrO 2 , is in accordance with previous studies (Nakamura et al., ; Weyhrauch, Igiel, Scheller, Weibrich & Lehmann, ). Weyhrauch et al.…”

“…In the current study, fracture load was lower for LS 2 than for ZrO 2 crowns and was not influenced by the cementation technique or the cementation material, confirming previous findings for ZrO s (Nakamura et al., ; Rohr, Märtin & Fischer, ; Stawarczyk et al., ). As both ceramic materials, LS 2 and ZrO 2 , have different compositions and mechanical properties, higher fracture load values were expected for ZrO 2 restorations (Denry & Kelly, ; Nakamura et al., ; Piconi & Maccauro, ).…”

Correlations between fracture load of zirconia implant supported single crowns and mechanical properties of restorative material and cement

“…VE and VM do not offer the option of conventional cementation. The fracture load of oxide ceramics (AL, YZ) is not influenced by the cement due to the high intrinsic strength of the material confirming previous findings for YZ 13,19) . Fracture analysis revealed for cemented crowns an initial fracture start from the loading point.…”

Microleakage around zirconia crown margins after ultrasonic scaling with self‐adhesive resin or resin modified glass ionomer cement

“…Different types of cement may affect the marginal seal as they differ based on their polymerization shrinkage, hygroscopic expansion, coefficient of thermal expansion, bond with tooth structure, and bond with zirconia . One of the clinical advantages of zirconia crowns is that they may be conventionally cemented with resin‐modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cement or adhesively bonded with resin cement without affecting the strength of the restoration . A 2013 survey by Clinician's Report found that 55% of dentists use RMGI cement and 39% of dentists use a resin cement for zirconia crowns .…”