Influence of Antagonist Material on Fatigue and Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Crowns

Abstract

Objective This study investigates the influence of the most commonly used indenter materials on fatigue survival and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns.

Materials and Methods A total of 40 zirconia crowns were prepared using computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology: 30 crowns were divided into three experimental groups of 10 specimens and the last 10 specimens acted as the control group. The experimental groups were subjected to chewing simulation with simultaneous thermocycling. Three indenter materials (steatite ceramic, stainless steel, and tungsten carbide) with identical diameter were used to load the specimens. All crowns were then subjected to single load to fracture test in universal testing machine. Load was applied vertically with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure, and fracture load was recorded.

Statistical Analysis Normal distribution of data was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were determined for all groups. Differences between groups were tested using Dunnett’s test and paired sample t-test.

Results Chewing simulation for 1.2 million cycles resulted in 100% survival. The highest mean fracture load was recorded for the control group and the lowest one was for the group fatigued with stainless steel indenter. Chewing simulation statistically significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the mean fracture load of the crowns fatigued with stainless steel and steatite ceramic indenter. However, the mean fracture load for the crowns fatigued with tungsten carbide was not significantly different from that of the control group.

Conclusion Steatite ceramic and stainless steel indenters produced close results and significantly reduced fracture load of zirconia crowns. However, tungsten carbide indenter caused nonsignificant reduction in the fracture load of zirconia crowns.

Keywords

antagonist - fatigue - chewing simulation - indenter material - fracture resistance

Publication History

Article published online:
20 April 2020

• References

• 1 Rashid H, Sheikh Z, Misbahuddin S, Kazmi MR, Qureshi S, Uddin MZ. Advancements in all-ceramics for dental restorations and their effect on the wear of opposing dentition. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (04) 583-588
• 2 Nayar S, Aruna U, Bhat WM. Enhanced aesthetics with all ceramics restoration. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015; 7 (Suppl 1) 
S282-S284
• 3 Kelly JR, Rungruanganunt P, Hunter B, Vailati F. Development of a clinically validated bulk failure test for ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104 (04) 228-238
• 4 Yang R, Arola D, Han Z, Zhang X. A comparison of the fracture resistance of three machinable ceramics after thermal and mechanical fatigue. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (04) 878-885
• 5 DeLong R, Douglas WH. Development of an artificial oral environment for the testing of dental restoratives: bi-axial force and movement control. J Dent Res 1983; 62 (01) 32-36
• 6 DeLong R, Douglas WH. An artificial oral environment for testing dental materials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1991; 38 (04) 339-345
• 7 Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81 (06) 652-661
• 8 Wiskott HW, Nicholls JI, Belser UC. Stress fatigue: basic principles and prosthodontic implications. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8 (02) 105-116
• 9 Galo R, Contente MM, Galafassi D, Borsatto MC. Hardness and modulus of elasticity of primary and permanent teeth after wear against different dental materials. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (04) 587-593
• 10 Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F. Lithium disilicate restorations fatigue testing parameters: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2016; 25 (02) 116-126
• 11 Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G. Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dent Mater 2006; 22 (02) 176-182
• 12 Rosentritt M, Behr M, Preis V. A critical evaluation of fatigue studies for restorative materials in dentistry. Curr Oral Health Rep 2016; 3: 221-228
• 13 Rosentritt M, Behr M, Scharnagl P, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Influence of resilient support of abutment teeth on fracture resistance of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24 (05) 465-468
• 14 Bhowmick S, Meléndez-Martínez JJ, Hermann I, Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Role of indenter material and size in veneer failure of brittle layer structures. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007; 82 (01) 253-259
• 15 Weber KR, Benetti P, Della Bona Á. et al. How does the piston material affect the in vitro mechanical behavior of dental ceramics?. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (05) 747-754
• 16 Miranda JS, de Carvalho RLA, de Carvalho RF. et al. Effect of different loading pistons on stress distribution of a CAD/CAM silica-based ceramic: CAD-FEA modeling and fatigue survival analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 94: 207-212
• 17 Harvey CK, Kelly JR. Contact damage as a failure mode during in vitro testing. J Prosthodont 1996; 5 (02) 95-100
• 18 Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Fatigue sensitivity of Y-TZP to microscale sharp-contact flaws. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 72 (02) 388-392
• 19 Aboushelib MN. Simulation of cumulative damage associated with long term cyclic loading using a multi-level strain accommodating loading protocol. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (02) 252-258
• 20 Qasim TQ, El-Masoud BM, Laban AMA. The effect of resistance grooves on the fracture toughness of zirconia-based crowns from mono and cyclic loading. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 491-495
• 21 Rosentritt M, Hahnel S, Engelhardt F, Behr M, Preis V. In vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant supported molar crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21 (04) 1213-1219
• 22 Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G. Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent 2008; 36 (12) 1048-1053
• 23 Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: a critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2003; 14 (01) 13-29
• 24 Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6 (05) 462-467
• 25 Rosentritt M, Plein T, Kolbeck C, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro fracture force and marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns fixed on natural and artificial teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13 (05) 387-391
• 26 Mahmood DJ, Linderoth EH, Vult Von Steyern P. The influence of support properties and complexity on fracture strength and fracture mode of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Acta Odontol Scand 2011; 69 (04) 229-237
• 27 Yucel MT, Yondem I, Aykent F, Eraslan O. Influence of the supporting die structures on the fracture strength of all-ceramic materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16 (04) 1105-1110
• 28 Nawafleh N, Hatamleh MM, Öchsner A, Mack F. The impact of core/veneer thickness ratio and cyclic loading on fracture resistance of lithium disilicate crown. J Prosthodont 2018; 27 (01) 75-82
• 29 Nawafleh NA, Hatamleh MM, Öchsner A, Mack F. Fracture load and survival of anatomically representative monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with reduced tooth preparation and ceramic thickness. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9 (06) 416-422
• 30 Nakamura K, Ankyu S, Nilsson F. et al. Critical considerations on load-to-failure test for monolithic zirconia molar crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 87: 180-189
• 31 Badran N, Abdel Kader S, Alabbassy F. Effect of incisal porcelain veneering thickness on the fracture resistance of cad/cam zirconia all-ceramic anterior crowns. Int J Dent 2019; 2019: 6548519
• 32 Vinson L, McCrea MC, Platt JA, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, Weddell A. Fracture resistance of full ceramic primary crowns. J Dent Oral Health Cosmesis 2016; doi:10.24966/DOHC-6783/100005
• 33 Nordahl N, Vult von Steyern P, Larsson C. Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness. J Oral Sci 2015; 57 (03) 255-261