This study evaluated marginal adaptation before and after thermomechanical (TCML) loading, gap width and fracture strength of all-ceramic single crowns, as compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM). Thirty extracted premolars were prepared with a round shoulder of 1.0 mm depth. Specimens were restored with zirconia-ceramic (Group 1), lithium disilicate (Group 2) and metal-ceramic single crowns (Group 3). The replica of each sample was observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the crown-cement (c-c) and tooth-cement interface (t-c). After TCML, perfect margins decreased to 91.3% (c-c) and 93.9% (t-c) in Group 1, 94.6% (c-c) and 96.0% (t-c) in Group 2 and 73.5% (c-c) and 53.1% (t-c) in Group 3. The mean fracture strengths were 654.8 ± 98.1 N for Group 1, 551.3 ± 127 N for Group 2 and 501.43 ± 110.1 N for Group 3. All-ceramic systems could substitute for metal-ceramic crowns, but chipping of veneering ceramics, especially in zirconia-based crowns, should be investigated.
This study evaluated marginal adaptation before and after thermomechanical (TCML) loading, gap width and fracture strength of all-ceramic single crowns, as compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM). Thirty extracted premolars were prepared with a round shoulder of 1.0 mm depth. Specimens were restored with zirconia–ceramic (Group 1), lithium disilicate (Group 2) and metal–ceramic single crowns (Group 3). The replica of each sample was observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the crown–cement (c–c) and tooth–cement interface (t–c). After TCML, perfect margins decreased to 91.3% (c–c) and 93.9% (t–c) in Group 1, 94.6% (c–c) and 96.0% (t–c) in Group 2 and 73.5% (c–c) and 53.1% (t–c) in Group 3. The mean fracture strengths were 654.8 ± 98.1 N for Group 1, 551.3 ± 127 N for Group 2 and 501.43 ± 110.1 N for Group 3. All-ceramic systems could substitute for metal–ceramic crowns, but chipping of veneering ceramics, especially in zirconia-based crowns, should be investigated.
Marginal Adaptation, Gap Width, and Fracture Strength of Teeth Restored With Different All-Ceramic Vs Metal Ceramic Crown Systems: An in Vitro Study / Monaco, C; Rosentritt, M; Llukacej, A; Baldissara, P; Scotti, R.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY. - ISSN 0965-7452. - 24:3(2016), pp. 130-137. [10.1922/EJPRD_01550Monaco08]
Marginal Adaptation, Gap Width, and Fracture Strength of Teeth Restored With Different All-Ceramic Vs Metal Ceramic Crown Systems: An in Vitro Study
Monaco C;
2016
Abstract
This study evaluated marginal adaptation before and after thermomechanical (TCML) loading, gap width and fracture strength of all-ceramic single crowns, as compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM). Thirty extracted premolars were prepared with a round shoulder of 1.0 mm depth. Specimens were restored with zirconia–ceramic (Group 1), lithium disilicate (Group 2) and metal–ceramic single crowns (Group 3). The replica of each sample was observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the crown–cement (c–c) and tooth–cement interface (t–c). After TCML, perfect margins decreased to 91.3% (c–c) and 93.9% (t–c) in Group 1, 94.6% (c–c) and 96.0% (t–c) in Group 2 and 73.5% (c–c) and 53.1% (t–c) in Group 3. The mean fracture strengths were 654.8 ± 98.1 N for Group 1, 551.3 ± 127 N for Group 2 and 501.43 ± 110.1 N for Group 3. All-ceramic systems could substitute for metal–ceramic crowns, but chipping of veneering ceramics, especially in zirconia-based crowns, should be investigated.
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
34. EJPRD 2016.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
1.53 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.53 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris
