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

Jurado, Carlos A.; Ahmed, Abdel Rahman; Lawson, Nathaniel C.; Azpiazu‐Flores, Francisco X.; Green, C. J.

doi:10.1111/jopr.13737

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers also focused on crown morphology in a 2023 study conducted by Jurado. They found that crowns without rest seats had a higher fracture resistance than crowns with rest seats; interproximal rest seats were the most resistant of all designs [59].…”

Section: Esthetic Properties Of Translucent Zirconiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Translucent Zirconia in Fixed Prosthodontics—An Integrative Overview

Kui,

Manziuc,

Petruțiu

et al. 2023

Biomedicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, dental ceramics have experienced rapid advances in science and technology, becoming the fastest-growing field of dental materials. This review emphasizes the significant impact of translucent zirconia in fixed prosthodontics, merging aesthetics with strength, and highlights its versatility from single crowns to complex bridgework facilitated by digital manufacturing advancements. The unique light-conducting properties of translucent zirconia offer a natural dental appearance, though with considerations regarding strength trade-offs compared to its traditional, opaque counterpart. The analysis extends to the mechanical attributes of the material, noting its commendable fracture resistance and durability, even under simulated physiological conditions. Various zirconia types (3Y-TZP, 4Y-TZP, 5Y-TZP) display a range of strengths influenced by factors like yttria content and manufacturing processes. The study also explores adhesive strategies, underlining the importance of surface treatments and modern adhesives in achieving long-lasting bonds. In the realm of implant-supported restorations, translucent zirconia stands out for its precision, reliability, and aesthetic adaptability, proving suitable for comprehensive dental restorations. Despite its established benefits, the review calls for ongoing research to further refine the material’s properties and adhesive protocols and to solidify its applicability through long-term clinical evaluations, ensuring its sustainable future in dental restorative applications.

show abstract

Section: Esthetic Properties Of Translucent Zirconiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Translucent Zirconia in Fixed Prosthodontics—An Integrative Overview

Kui,

Manziuc,

Petruțiu

et al. 2023

Biomedicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Fracture resistance of chairside CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate occlusal veneer with various designs after mechanical aging

Jurado,

Tsujimoto,

Molisani

et al. 2024

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study evaluated the fracture resistance of chairside computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) lithium disilicate crown, onlay, and non‐anatomical occlusal veneer (A‐OV) with and without margin fabricated.Materials and MethodsSixty‐four CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate restorations were designed as (1) complete coverage crown (CCC); (2) A‐OV with margin; (3) non‐A‐OV with margin (NA‐OV‐M); and (4) non‐A‐OV without margin (NA‐OV‐NM), 16 of each. Restorations were crystallized and adhesively luted to resin dies using resin cement. Specimens were then subjected to 400,000 cycles of chewing in a mastication simulator. A universal testing machine was used to apply a compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min to the long axis of the tooth with a stainless‐steel sphere until fracture occurred. One‐way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests were used to assess the impact of preparation design on the fracture load of CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate restorations.ResultsThe highest fracture load was recorded for CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate indirect restorations for non‐A‐OVs preparation with margin (2549 ± 428 N) and onlay (2549 ± 293 N) and the lowest fracture load was recorded for CCCs (2389 ± 428 N); however, there was no significant (p = 0.640) between groups.ConclusionsCAD‐CAM lithium disilicate restorations fabricated for anatomical and non‐A‐OV preparation display a fracture resistance similar to CCCs. Conservative partial coverage restorations may be considered an acceptable approach for posterior teeth.

show abstract

Influence of occlusal thickness on the fracture resistance of chairside milled lithium disilicate posterior full‐coverage single‐unit prostheses containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study

Jurado,

Davila,

Davila

et al. 2024

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the fracture resistance of chairside computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) lithium disilicate mandibular posterior crowns with virgilite of different occlusal thicknesses and compare them to traditional lithium disilicate crowns.Materials and MethodsSeventy‐five chairside CAD‐CAM crowns were fabricated for mandibular right first molars, 60 from novel lithium disilicate with virgilite (CEREC Tessera, Dentsply Sirona), and 15 from traditional lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). These crowns were distributed across five groups based on occlusal thickness and material: Group 1 featured CEREC Tessera crowns with 0.8 mm thickness, Group 2 had 1.0 mm thickness, Group 3 had 1.2 mm thickness, Group 4 with 1.5 mm thickness, and Group 5 included e.max CAD crowns with 1.0 mm thickness. These crowns were luted onto 3D‐printed resin dies using Multilink Automix resin cement (Ivoclar Vivadent). Subsequently, they underwent cyclic loading (2,000,000 cycles at 1 Hz with a 275 N force) and loading until fracture. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assessed the fractured specimens. Statistical analysis involved one‐way ANOVA and the Kruskal‐Wallis Test (α = 0.05).ResultsFracture resistance varied significantly (<0.001) across mandibular molar crowns fabricated from chairside CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate containing virgilite, particularly between crowns with 0.8 mm and those with 1.2 and 1.5 mm occlusal thickness. However, no significant differences were found when comparing crowns with 1, 1.2, and 1.5 mm thicknesses. CEREC Tessera crowns with 1.5 mm thickness exhibited the highest resistance (2119 N/mm2), followed by those with 1.2 mm (1982 N/mm2), 1.0 mm (1763 N/mm2), and 0.8 mm (1144 N/mm2) thickness, whereas e.max CAD crowns with 1.0 mm occlusal thickness displayed the lowest resistance (814 N/mm2).ConclusionsThe relationship between thickness and fracture resistance in the virgilite lithium disilicate full‐coverage crowns was directly proportional, indicating that increased thickness corresponded to higher fracture resistance. No significant differences were noted among crowns with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 1.5 mm. This novel ceramic exhibited superior fracture resistance compared to traditional lithium disilicate.

show abstract

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

Cited by 4 publications

References 38 publications

Translucent Zirconia in Fixed Prosthodontics—An Integrative Overview

Translucent Zirconia in Fixed Prosthodontics—An Integrative Overview

Fracture resistance of chairside CAD‐CAM lithium disilicate occlusal veneer with various designs after mechanical aging

Influence of occlusal thickness on the fracture resistance of chairside milled lithium disilicate posterior full‐coverage single‐unit prostheses containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About