Influence of Different Framework Designs on the Fracture Properties of Ceria-Stabilized Tetragonal Zirconia/Alumina-Based All-Ceramic Crowns

Emerging trends and clinical recommendations for zirconia ceramic crowns: a concise review

Introduction A little over ten years ago, zirconia crowns made their debut in the field of dentistry. Despite early problems with the chipping of veneering porcelain, clinical studies have demonstrated excellent performance. It is essential for a ceramic crown to have good aesthetic qualities, in addition to having good mechanical characteristics. The exceptional mechanical qualities of zirconia crowns and the simplicity with which they may be machined, employing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing schemes, are primarily responsible for the widespread use of these materials in clinical settings. New ceramic-based materials, including monolithic zirconia, zirconia-containing lithium disilicate ceramics, and graded glass/zirconia/glass, have recently been launched in the field of dentistry. These newly discovered zirconia crown materials stem from varied technological approaches, each likely to lead to additional clinical advancements. At this point, it seems imperative to offer a concentrated report on the newer developments, along with essential clinical recommendations for best clinical outcomes with zirconia crowns.Types of studies This review article is a consolidation of several case studies, cohort studies and systematic reviews, as well as experimental and observational randomised control trials and other peer-reviewed articles.Results On reviewing, a concise list of clinical recommendations is generated, demonstrating that monolithic zirconia offers some clinical advantages over veneered zirconia crowns.Conclusion This review article discloses various clinical revelations and in-office recommendations for favourable usage of zirconia ceramic crowns that can lead to better patient outcomes and long-term clinical success rates.

Shade match comparison of CAD-CAM single crowns to a lithium disilicate crown

PURPOSE

To assess the shade match ability of four varieties of all-ceramic crowns to a neighboring bilayered lithium disilicate crown.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A dentiform was used to fabricate a bilayered lithium disilicate crown on the maxillary right central incisor, following the anatomy and shade of a selected natural tooth. Two crowns (one full-contour, one cutback) were then designed on a prepared maxillary left central incisor, following the contour of the neighboring crown. The designed crowns were used to manufacture monolithic lithium disilicate, bilayered lithium disilicate, bilayered zirconia, and monolithic zirconia crowns, 10 each. An intraoral scanner and a spectrophotometer were used to assess the frequency of matched shades and to calculate the color difference (ΔE) between the two central incisors at the incisal, middle, and cervical thirds. Kruskal-Wallis and two-way ANOVA were used to compare the frequency of matched shades and ΔE values, respectively (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in frequencies of matched shades for each group at the three sites; except bilayered lithium disilicate crowns. Bilayered lithium disilicate crowns had significantly (p < 0.05) higher match frequency than monolithic zirconia at the middle third. The ΔE value was not significantly (p > 0.05) different among the groups at the cervical third. However, monolithic zirconia had significantly (p < 0.05) higher ΔE values than bilayered lithium disilicate and zirconia at the incisal and middle thirds.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilayered lithium disilicate and zirconia appeared to most closely match the shade of an existing bilayered lithium disilicate crown.

The Effect of Modified Framework Design on the Fracture Resistance of IPS e.max Press Crown after Thermocycling and Cyclic Loading

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the effect of modified framework (MF) design on the fracture resistance of IPS e.max Press anterior single crown after thermocycling and cyclic loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two types of IPS e.max Press frameworks were designed (n = 10); standard framework (SF) with a 0.5 mm uniform thickness and MF with a lingual margin of 1 mm in thickness and 2 mm in height connected to a proximal strut of 4 mm height and a 0.3 mm wide facial collar. The crowns were cemented to resin dies, subjected to 5,000 cycles of thermocycling, and loaded 10,000 cycles at 100 N. A universal testing machine was used to load specimens to fracture, and the modes of failure were determined.

RESULTS

The mean and standard deviation (SD) of fracture resistance were 219.24 ± 110.00 N and 216.54 ±120.02 N in the SF and MF groups. Thus, there was no significant difference (p = 0.96). Mixed fracture was the most common failure mode in both groups. We found no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

The MF design did not increase the fracture resistance of IPS e.max Press crown.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Framework design is an essential factor for the success of all-ceramic restorations and its modification might be regarded as an approach to increase fracture resistance. Furthermore, the modified design was evaluated in metal-ceramic or zirconia crowns while less attention was paid to the IPS e.max Press crowns. How to cite this article: Golrezaei M, Mahgoli HA, Yaghoobi N, et al. The Effect of Modified Framework Design on the Fracture Resistance of IPS e.max Press Crown after Thermocycling and Cyclic Loading. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(1):79-84.

Effect of margin design on fracture load of zirconia crowns

Zirconia‐based restorations are showing an increase as the clinicians’ preferred choice at posterior sites because of the strength and esthetic properties of such restorations. However, all‐ceramic restorations fracture at higher rates than do metal‐based restorations. Margin design is one of several factors that can affect the fracture strength of all‐ceramic restorations. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of preparation and crown margin design on fracture resistance. Four groups of bilayer zirconia crowns (with 10 crowns in each group) were produced by hard‐ or soft‐machining technique, with the following four different margin designs: chamfer preparation (control); slice preparation; slice preparation with an additional cervical collar of 0.7 mm thickness; and reduced occlusal thickness (to 0.4 mm) on slice preparation with an additional cervical collar of 0.7 mm thickness. Additionally, 10 hard‐machined crowns with slice preparation were veneered and glazed with feldspathic porcelain. In total, 90 crowns were loaded centrally in the occlusal fossa until fracture. The load at fracture was higher than clinically relevant mastication loads for all preparation and margin designs. The crowns on a chamfer preparation fractured at higher loads compared with crowns on a slice preparation. An additional cervical collar increased load at fracture for hard‐machined crowns.

Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials-A Laboratory Peel-off Study

Computer-aided design (CAD) and additive manufacturing (AM) have shown promise in facilitating the fabrication of custom trays. Due to the clinical requirements, custom tray materials should achieve good bonding to the impression/adhesive systems. This study evaluated the retention of three fused deposition modeling (FDM) custom tray materials to a silicone impression/adhesive system before and after gritblasting (GB) by peel-off test. CAD-designed experimental test blocks were printed by FDM using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolyester (PETG), and high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and the reference test blocks were made of a conventional light-curing resin (n = 11). Before and after GB, the surface topography of all tray materials was analysed, and the maximum strength of the test block peeled off from a silicone impression/adhesive system was measured. After GB, the arithmetic mean height (Sa) and the valley fluid retention index (Svi) of the four material groups declined (p < 0.05). The peel-off strength of each of the four material groups significantly decreased by GB (p < 0.05), but no statistical difference could be found among them before or after GB. In all peel-off tests, adhesive failure occurred at the adhesive-impression material interface. The results indicated ABS, HIPS, and PETG could provide sufficient adhesion to the adhesive as the conventional light-curing resin, and GB could reduce the roughness generated by FDM and weaken the bonding between the adhesive and the silicone impression.