Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(4) > 1034602

Shin, Kim, and Oh: Fracture load and marginal fitness of zirconia ceramic coping by design and coloration

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal fitness and fracture load of the zirconia copings according to the design with different thickness and coloration.

Material and methods

The evaluation was based on 80 zirconia copings. Zirconia copings were fabricated in design with different thicknesses using CAD/CAM system (Everset, KAVO dental GmbH, Biberach, Germany). The designs of copings were divided into four groups. The first group consisted of copings with uniform thickness of 0.3 mm. The thickness in the second group was 0.3 mm on the buccal surface and 0.6 mm on the lingual surface. The third group consisted of coping with uniform thickness of 0.6 mm. The thickness in the fourth group was 0.6 mm on the buccal surface and 1mm on the lingual surface. Each group consisted of 10 colored and 10 uncolored copings. Half of the copings (40) processed with a milling system according to the specific design were sent to be given a color (A3) through saturation in special dye by a manufacturing company. Just after sintering, the marginal discrepancies of copings were measured on the buccal, lingual, mesial and distal surfaces of metal die, under a Video Microscope System (sv-35, Sometech, Seoul, Korea) at a magnification of × 100. It was remeasured after the adjusting of the inner surface. Next, all copings were luted to the metal dies using reinforced cement {GC FujiCEM (GC Corp. Tokyo, Japan)} and mounted on the testing jig in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron 4467, Norwood, MA, USA). The results were analyzed statistically using the one-way ANOVA test.

Results

The obtained results were as follow: 1. The measured value of marginal discrepancy right after sintering was the greatest in the contraction of the buccal area in all groups, except for group I2. 2. There was no significant difference of marginal fitness among the groups in the colored zirconia group (P < .05). 3. When the marginal fitness among the groups in the uncolored zirconia group was considered, group II2 had the smallest marginal discrepancy. 4. When the colored and uncolored groups with the same design were compared, there was a significant difference between I1 and II1 groups. In group 2, 3, and 4, the uncolored zirconia had the greatest marginal fitness (P < .05). 5. After adjustment of inner surface, there was no significant difference in the marginal fitness in all groups when color and design of the zirconia coping were compared. 6. The fracture load of CAD/CAM zirconia copings showed significant difference in group 1, 2, 3, and 4. I4 and II4 had the strongest fracture load. 7. When groups with different color and same design were compared, all colored groups showed greater fracture load (P > .05), with no significance.

Conclusion

There was difference in the marginal fitness according to the design and coloration of zirconia copings right after sintering, but it was decided that the copings may well be used clinically if the inner surface are adjusted. The copings should be thick enough for the reinforcement of fracture strength. But considering the esthetics of the visible surfaces (labial and buccal surface), the thickness of copings may be a little thin, without giving any significant effect on the fracture strength. This type of design may be considered when giving priority to preservation of tooth or esthetics. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:406-15)

REFERENCES

1.Shin ES., Lee YS., Park WH. Comparative study in fracture strength of zirconia cores fabricated with three different CAD/CAM systems. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008. 46:22–30.
2.Jeong HC. Fracture strength of zirconia monolithic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006. 44:157–64.
3.Giordano R. All-ceramic restorative systems: alumina-based core systems. J Mass Dent Soc. 2002. 51:30–5.
4.White SN., Caputo AA., Li ZC., Zhao XY. Modulus of rupture of the Procera All-Ceramic System. J Esthet Dent. 1996. 8:120–6.
crossref
5.Wagner WC., Chu TM. Biaxial flexural strength and indentation fracture toughness of three new dental core ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:140–4.
crossref
6.Kelly JR., Tesk JA., Sorensen JA. Failure of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures in vitro and in vivo: analysis and modeling. J Dent Res. 1995. 74:1253–8.
7.Fischer H., Weber M., Marx R. Lifetime prediction of all-ceramic bridges by computational methods. J Dent Res. 2003. 82:238–42.
crossref
8.Kupiec KA., Wuertz KM., Barkmeier WW., Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:119–24.
crossref
9.May KB., Russell MM., Razzoog ME., Lang BR. Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:394–404.
crossref
10.Kim DK., Cho IH., Lim JH., Lim HS. On the Marginal fidelity of All-ceramic core using CAD/CAM system. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2003. 41:20–33.
11.Tinschert J., Natt G., Mautsch W., Spiekermann H., Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:367–74.
12.Valderrama S., Van Roekel N., Andersson M., Goodacre CJ., Munoz CA. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of titanium and gold-platinum-palladium metal ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:29–37.
13.Kelly JR., Nishimura I., Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry: historical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 75:18–32.
crossref
14.Heffernan MJ., Aquilino SA., Diaz-Arnold AM., Haselton DR., Stanford CM., Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: core materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 88:4–9.
crossref
15.Heffernan MJ., Aquilino SA., Diaz-Arnold AM., Haselton DR., Stanford CM., Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part II: core and veneer materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 88:10–5.
crossref
16.Antonson SA., Anusavice KJ. Contrast ratio of veneering and core ceramics as a function of thickness. Int J Prosthodont. 2001. 14:316–20.
17.Johnston WM., Ma T., Kienle BH. Translucency parameter of colorants for maxillofacial prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 1995. 8:79–86.
18.Zhang Y., Griggs JA., Benham AW. Influence of powder/liquid mixing ratio on porosity and translucency of dental porcelains. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 91:128–35.
crossref
19.Devigus A., Lombardi G. Shading Vita YZ substructures: influence on value and chroma, part I. Int J Comput Dent. 2004. 7:293–301.
20.Devigus A., Lombardi G. Shading Vita In-ceram YZ substructures: influence on value and chroma, part II. Int J Comput Dent. 2004. 7:379–88.
21.Koutayas SO., Kakaboura A., Hussein A., Strub JR. Colorimetric evaluation of the influence of five different restorative materials on the color of veneered densely sintered alumina. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003. 15:353–60. discussion 361.
crossref
22.Beuer F., Erdelt KJ., Schweiger J., Eichberger M., and Gernet W. Flexural strength and coloured and aged zirconia. 2004. IADR: abstract no 0113.
23.OH SC., Lee HH., Shin MR., Park KS. Translucency and Color Stability of various core Ceramics for All-Ceramic Restoration. J Korean Acad Stomato Func Occ. 2007. 23:156–70.
24.Koo JY., Lim JH., Cho IH. Marginal fidelity according to the margin types of all ceramic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1997. 35:445–57.
25.Sorensen JA. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:18–24.
crossref
26.Kay GW., Jablonski DA., Dogon IL. Factors affecting the seating and fit of complete crowns: a computer simulation study. J Prosthet Dent. 1986. 55:13–8.
crossref
27.Kim IS., Kang DW. Marginal adaptation of the conical inner crown fabrication with CAD/CAM. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2002. 40:30–41.
28.Boening KW., Wolf BH., Schmidt AE., Ka ¨ stner K., Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:419–24.
crossref
29.Wang CJ., Millstein PL., Nathanson D. Effects of cement, cement space, marginal design, seating aid materials, and seating force on crown cementation. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 67:786–90.
crossref
30.Oh SC., Lee HH., Lee IK., Shin MR. Flexure strength of various colored and uncolored zirconia ceramics for allceramic restoration. J Korean Acad Stomato Func Occ. 2007. 23:119–30.
31.Beuer F., Erdelt KJ., Schweiger J., Eichberger M., Gernet W. Flexural strength and coloured and aged zirconia. 2004. IADR;abstract no 1775.
32.Huang H., Zhang FQ., Sun J., Gao L. Effect of three kinds of rare earth oxides on chromaticity and mechanical properties of zirconia ceramic. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006. 41:327–30.
33.Hwang JW., Yang JH. A study on the fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled In-ceram crown. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1997. 35:417–29.
34.Seghi RR., Daher T., Caputo A. Relative flexural strength of dental restorative ceramics. Dent Mater. 1990. 6:181–4.
crossref
35.Lee SK., Wilson PR. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns with varying core elastic moduli. Aust Dent J. 2000. 45:103–7.
36.Seo JY., Park IN., Lee KW. Fracture strength between different connector designs of zirconia core for posterior fixed partial dentures manufactured with CAD/CAM system. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006. 44:29–39.

Fig. 1.
Schematic view of tooth preparation.
jkap-47-406f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Schematic view of zirconia coping by design.
jkap-47-406f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Measuring points for marginal discrepancy.
jkap-47-406f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Measurement of the marginal discrepancy using the video microscope system just after sintering (× 100).
jkap-47-406f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Measurement of the marginal discrepancy using the video microscope system after internal adjusting and sintering (× 100).
jkap-47-406f5.tif
Fig. 6.
Schematic view of the test specimen on the universal testing machine.
jkap-47-406f6.tif
Fig. 7.
Comparison of fracture strengths of zirconia coping with different color & designs.
jkap-47-406f7.tif
Fig. 8.
Comparison of marginal discrepancy of zirconia core with different designs just after sintering without any adjustment.
jkap-47-406f8.tif
Fig. 9.
Comparison of marginal discrepancy of zirconia coping with different color just after sintering.
jkap-47-406f9.tif
Table I.
Group naming of zirconia coping by design
Group   Zirconia coping design
Colored I1 0.3 mm
(I) I2 0.3 (buccal side) - 0.6 mm (lingual side)
  I3 0.6 mm
  I4 0.6 (buccal side) - 1.0 mm (lingual side)
Uncolored II1 0.3 mm
(II) II2 0.3 (buccal side) - 0.6 mm (lingual side)
  II3 0.6 mm
  II4 0.6 (buccal side) - 1.0 mm (lingual side)
Table II.
Mean of fracture strength (N) and standard deviation of all Groups
  I1 I2 I3 I4 II1 II2 II3 II4
mean 373.4 1278 968.3 2892.8 435.1 1352.1 1116.6 2962.4
SD 83.9 515.9 112.3 569.1 105.6 480.3 89.6 462.9
Table III.
Result of one-way ANOVA for fracture load of Group I
  Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 384867.056 3 128289.019 98.522 .000
Within groups 46876.982 36 1302.138    
Total 431744.038 39      
Table IV.
Result of one-way ANOVA for fracture load of Group II
  Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 336560.301 3 112186.767 75.136 .000
Within groups 53752.122 36 1493.114    
Total 390312.423 39      
Table V.
Result of independent t test of zirconia coping groups with different color and same design
Group   Levene's test for equality of variances t - test for equality of means
F Sig. T Df Sig (2-tailed)
I1, II1 Equal variances assumed .651 .430 -1.448 18 .165
  Equal variances not assumed     -1.448 17.135 .166
I2, II2 Equal variances assumed .000 1.000 -.332 18 .744
  Equal variances not assumed     -.332 17.908 .744
I3, II3 Equal variances assumed .189 .290 -3.268 18 .004
  Equal variances not assumed     -3.268 17.115 .004
I4, II4 Equal variances assumed .175 .681 .300 18 .767
  Equal variances not assumed     .300 17.284 .768
Table VI.
Mean of total marginal discrepancies (μ m) of each CAD/CAM zirconia coping groups just after sintering
Source of variation Colored Uncolored
I1 I2 I3 I4 II1 II2 II3 II4
Distal Mean 481.40 432.20 550.60 621.50 473.10 324.10 347.20 324.80
  SD 178.64 135.04 233.26 363.71 84.42 84.57 151.87 121.31
Mesial Mean 486.00 441.80 534.80 614.40 479.70 323.30 336.30 330.60
  SD 180.95 148.07 220.75 246.86 66.36 92.62 155.42 132.49
Buccal Mean 510.10 445.50 557.91 638.00 499.80 348.80 345.30 368.00
  SD 175.18 132.03 220.61 188.99 67.44 75.42 136.04 131.30
Lingual Mean 481.50 452.00 555.10 602.30 480.80 333.30 329.70 336.90
  SD 177.50 159.13 227.58 228.04 78.82 78.71 145.80 112.18
Table VII.
Result of one-way ANOVA for marginal discrepancy of Group I
  Sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between groups 170946.713 3 56982.238 2.606 0.067
Within groups 787158.188 36 21865.505    
Total 958104.900 39      
Table VIII.
Result of one-way ANOVA for marginal fitness of Group II
  Sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between groups 449658.042 3 149886.014 5.802 0.002
Within groups 930007.206 36 25833.534    
Total 1379665.248 39      
Table IX.
Result of independent t-test of zirconia coping groups with different color and same design just after sintering without any adjustment
Group   Levene's test for equality of variances t - test for equality of means
F Sig. T Df Sig (2-tailed)
I1, II1 Equal variances assumed 5.769 .027 .107 18 .916
  Equal variances not assumed     .107 11.717 .917
I2, II2 Equal variances assumed 3.804 .067 2.155 18 .045
  Equal variances not assumed     2.155 14.294 .049
I3, II3 Equal variances assumed 0.142 .710 -2.479 18 .023
  Equal variances not assumed     -2.479 15.485 .025
I4, II4 Equal variances assumed 0.365 .553 -3.707 18 .002
  Equal variances not assumed     -3.707 14.707 .002
Table X.
Mean of total marginal discrepancies of each CAD/CAM zirconia coping groups after adjusting Unit (μ m
  I1 I2 I3 I4 II1 II2 II3 II4
mean 107 177 101 118 94 84 96 98
SD 33 89 18 22 25 19 23 28
TOOLS
Similar articles