Display options
Cite
Turk AG, Ulusoy M, Yuce M, et al. Effect of different veneering techniques on the fracture strength of metal and zirconia frameworks. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(6):454-9doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454.
Turk, A. G., Ulusoy, M., Yuce, M., & Akin, H. (2015). Effect of different veneering techniques on the fracture strength of metal and zirconia frameworks. The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 7(6), 454-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454
Turk, Ayse Gozde, et al. "Effect of different veneering techniques on the fracture strength of metal and zirconia frameworks." The journal of advanced prosthodontics vol. 7,6 (2015): 454-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454
Turk AG, Ulusoy M, Yuce M, Akin H. Effect of different veneering techniques on the fracture strength of metal and zirconia frameworks. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;7(6):454-9. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454. Epub 2015 Dec 30. PMID: 26816575; PMCID: PMC4722149.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;7(6):454-9. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454. Epub 2015 Dec 30.

Effect of different veneering techniques on the fracture strength of metal and zirconia frameworks.

The journal of advanced prosthodontics

Ayse Gozde Turk, Mubin Ulusoy, Mert Yuce, Hakan Akin

Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, Izmir, Turkey.
  2. Private practice, Izmir, Turkey.
  3. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.

PMID: 26816575 PMCID: PMC4722149 DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.454

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether the fracture strengths and failure types differed between metal and zirconia frameworks veneered with pressable or layering ceramics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom molar tooth was prepared and duplicated in 40 cobalt-chromium abutments. Twenty metal (IPS d.SIGN 15, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and 20 zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar) frameworks were fabricated on the abutments. Each framework group was randomly divided into 2 subgroups according to the veneering material: pressable and layering ceramics (n=10). Forty molar crowns were fabricated, cemented onto the corresponding abutments and then thermocycled (5-55℃, 10,000 cycles). A load was applied in a universal testing machine until a fracture occurred on the crowns. In addition, failure types were examined using a stereomicroscope. Fracture load data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post-hoc tests at a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS: The highest strength value was seen in metal-pressable (MP) group, whereas zirconia-pressable (ZP) group exhibited the lowest one. Moreover, group MP showed significantly higher fracture loads than group ZP (P=.015) and zirconia-layering (ZL) (P=.038) group. No significant difference in fracture strength was detected between groups MP and ML, and groups ZP and ZL (P>.05). Predominant fracture types were cohesive for metal groups and adhesive for zirconia groups.

CONCLUSION: Fracture strength of a restoration with a metal or a zirconia framework was independent of the veneering techniques. However, the pressing technique over metal frameworks resisted significantly higher fracture loads than zirconia frameworks.

Keywords: Compressive strength; Crowns; Dental porcelain; Zirconia

References

  1. J Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;24(8):620-8 - PubMed
  2. Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Jul-Aug;21(4):307-11 - PubMed
  3. Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Sep-Oct;6(5):462-7 - PubMed
  4. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Sep-Oct;13(5):387-91 - PubMed
  5. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012 Aug;4(3):162-9 - PubMed
  6. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Jul;106(1):29-37 - PubMed
  7. J Prosthodont. 2005 Dec;14(4):239-47 - PubMed
  8. Dent Mater. 2014 Sep;30(9):954-62 - PubMed
  9. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015 May;33(5):246-51 - PubMed
  10. Dent Mater. 2008 Nov;24(11):1556-67 - PubMed
  11. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011 Jun;119(3):253-7 - PubMed
  12. J Adhes Dent. 2014 Feb;16(1):57-62 - PubMed
  13. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Nov;141(11):1317-29 - PubMed
  14. J Dent. 2011 Jul;39(7):489-98 - PubMed
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Dec;92(6):551-6 - PubMed
  16. Dent Mater. 2009 Jun;25(6):781-90 - PubMed
  17. J Dent. 2010 Apr;38(4):318-24 - PubMed
  18. J Dent. 2009 Sep;37(9):731-6 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Oral Sci. 2014 Jun;122(3):245-50 - PubMed
  20. Dent Mater. 2009 Jan;25(1):121-8 - PubMed
  21. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56 Suppl 1:77-83 - PubMed
  22. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Dec;17(6):1200-7 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012 Jun;120(3):249-54 - PubMed
  24. Dent Mater. 2011 Oct;27(10):1045-53 - PubMed
  25. Dent Mater. 2005 Oct;21(10):984-91 - PubMed
  26. Dent Mater. 2005 May;21(5):476-82 - PubMed
  27. Dent Mater. 2011 Dec;27(12):1204-12 - PubMed
  28. J Prosthodont. 2011 Dec;20(8):621-7 - PubMed
  29. Photomed Laser Surg. 2013 Jun;31(6):261-8 - PubMed
  30. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011 Dec;29(12):797-802 - PubMed
  31. Dent Mater. 2006 Sep;22(9):857-63 - PubMed
  32. Dent Mater. 1995 Mar;11(2):142-6 - PubMed

Publication Types