Optimal post height and diameter in preformed zirconia crown restoration on 3D-printed primary incisors

Abstract

In this in vitro study, fracture resistance was evaluated according to the post-diameter and -length in zirconia crown restorations on three-dimensional printed primary incisors undergone pulpectomy. One hundred-and-sixty primary incisor abutments were used which were artificially fabricated through 3D-printing. Each group was divided into two subgroups based on the zirconia post-diameter (1.5 mm and 2.0 mm) employed for post setting after pulpectomy. Furthermore, each group was divided into four subgroups based on the zirconia post-height (3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 mm). Zirconia post setting was made by applying flowable resin after filling the pulp cavity with calcium hydroxide up to 3.0 mm below cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). Finally, a preformed zirconia crown of size #1 was cemented to the abutment through resin cement. A compressive load was applied to the middle palatal surface of incisors restored with zirconia crowns by using a universal testing machine at 145◦ angle which is the normal interincisal angle of children. The root fracture specimens were excluded and the samples fractured within crown and core parts were included in the final fracture resistance analysis. The group with 1.5-mm post-diameter and 5.0-mm post-height had the highest fracture resistance strength (130.63 ± 55.75 N) under masticatory pressure condition. Fracture resistance was statistically greater in 5.0-mm than in 4.0-mm and 3.0-mm post-height groups for 1.5-mm post-diameter subgroup. Moreover, 5.0-mm post-height subgroup had a statistically greater fracture resistance than that of 3.0-mm post-height subgroup for 2.0-mm post-diameter group. The 2.0-mm post-diameter subgroup had a statistically greater fracture resistance than that of 1.5-mm post-diameter subgroup for 3.0-mm and 4.0-mm post-heights. If zirconia post incorporation is required for deciduous incisor restoration, a post-length equal to facial CEJ level is recommended for gaining additional retention against masticatory pressure.

The Use of 3d Printers in Dental Production Practice: Possibilities for the Manufacture of Individual Dental Prostheses and Elements (Review Article)

“…In vitro study Farag et al [47] 2024 Hajjaj et al [48] 2024 Kim et al [49] 2023 160 Kwon et al [50] 2021 Fr ąckiewicz et al [51] 2024 Systematic Review 686 Al-Makramani et al [52] 2023…”

“…Digital Light Processing follows with four mentions [22], [30], [35], [50], while Fused Deposition Modeling and resin-based 3D printing each appear twice [36], [44] and [41], [46] respectively. Additionally, the review encompasses a diverse range of other 3D printing technologies, collectively referenced 21 times [23], [26]- [34], [37], [38], [40], [41], [43], [48], [49], [53], [55], [57], [58]. This comprehensive overview underscores the multifaceted application of 3D printing in dental prosthetic and element manufacturing, providing valuable insights into the evolving landscape of dental production technologies.…”

“…It outlines five main categories: Crown and Restoration Studies, Implant and Surgical Guides, Denture Studies, Partial Dentures and Edentulous Models, and Miscellaneous Dental Prostheses. Crown and Restoration Studies, focusing on the development or evaluation of crowns and restorations, were the most frequently discussed, with 12 studies cited [22], [27]- [29], [35], [47], [49]- [51], [53]- [55]. Following this, Implant and Surgical Guides, Denture Studies, and Partial Dentures and Edentulous Models were also represented, with 6 [23], [39], [43], [44], [48], [58], 3 [24], [26], [33], and [31], [32], [38], [57] studies respectively.…”

“…Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of results that encompass the clinical effectiveness of dental materials and techniques, the utilization of 3D printing and CAD/CAM in dentistry, the assessment of dental restorations and prosthetics, the evaluation of implantology techniques and procedures, and the assessment of orthodontic and surgical applications. Most commonly appearing studies within these categories include 3D printing and CAD/CAM applications [23], [36], [38], [52], [58]; dental restorations and prosthetics [31], [33], [46], [49], [53] and the evaluation of orthodontic and surgical applications [34], [35], [41], [43], [50], [54]. This summary provides a significant perspective on contemporary research and clinical methodologies, benefiting academics, practition-3D Printing Technology Frequency Author's Stereolithography (SLA) 7 [22], [25], [26], [40], [45], [47], [52] Digital Light Processing (DLP) 4 [22], [30], [35], [50] Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 2 [36], [44] Resin-based 3D printing 2 [41], [46] Various 3D printing technologies 21 [23], [26]- [34], [37], [38], [40], [41], [43],…”

Comparison of three-dimensional printed resin crowns and preformed stainless steel crowns for primary molar restorations: a randomized controlled trial

“…Additionally, 3Dprinted surgical guides help safely extract deeply impacted supernumerary teeth [15]. Their usefulness extends to effective prosthetic treatment of school-age students with oligodontia [16] and for the testing of fracture resistance of zirconia crown restorations with additional post [17]. It applies to or-thodontic interventions, especially beneficial for patients who have difficulty producing alginate impressions.…”