Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Nathaniel C. Lawson; Carlos A. Jurado; Chan‐Te Huang; Geoffrey P. Morris; John O. Burgess; Perng‐Ru Liu; Keith E. Kinderknecht; Chee Paul Lin; Daniel A. Givan

doi:10.1111/jopr.13088

Back

Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Nathaniel C. Lawson, Carlos A. Jurado, Chan‐Te Huang, Geoffrey P. Morris, John O. Burgess, Perng‐Ru Liu, Keith E. Kinderknecht, Chee Paul Lin and Daniel A. Givan

Journal of prosthodontics, Vol.28(6), pp.659-665

07/2019

DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13088

PMCID: PMC6642729

PMID: 31145492

Files and links (1)

url

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6642729View

Open Access

Abstract

Purpose To determine if surface treatment and cement selection for traditional 3 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (3Y‐PSZ), “translucent” 5 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia (5Y‐Z), or lithium disilicate crowns affected their fracture load. Materials and Methods Crowns with 0.8 mm uniform thickness (96, n = 8/group) were milled of 3Y‐PSZ (Lava Plus), 5Y‐Z (Lava Esthetic), or lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) and sintered/crystallized. Half the crowns were either particle‐abraded with 30 µm alumina (zirconias) or etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid (lithium disilicate), and the other half received no surface treatment. Half the crowns from each group were luted with resin‐modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus) and half were luted with a resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2) to resin composite dies. Crowns were load cycled (100,000 cycles, 100 N force, 24°C water) and then loaded with a steel indenter until failure. A three‐way ANOVA examined the effects of material, cement, and surface treatment on fracture load. Post‐hoc comparisons were performed with the Tukey‐Krammer method. Results Fracture load was signficiantly different for materials and cements (p < 0.0001) but not surface treatments (p = 0.77). All lithium disilicate crowns luted with RMGI failed in fatigue loading cycling; 3Y‐PSZ and 5Y‐Z crowns luted with resin showed a higher fracture load compared with RMGI (p < 0.001). With resin cement, there was no signficant difference in fracture load between 5Y‐Z and lithium disiliciate (p = 1) whereas 3Y‐PSZ had a higher fracture load (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Cement type affected fracture load of crowns but surface treatment did not. The 0.8 mm uniform thick crowns tested benefited from using resin cement regardless of type of ceramic material. Crowns fabricated from 5Y‐Z may be particle‐abraded if luted with resin cement.

Cementation

resin cements

Details

Title: Subtitle: Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns
Creators: Nathaniel C. Lawson - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Carlos A. Jurado - Oregon Health & Science University
Chan‐Te Huang - Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
Geoffrey P. Morris - 3M Oral Care Solutions Division Saint Paul MN
John O. Burgess - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Perng‐Ru Liu - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Keith E. Kinderknecht - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Chee Paul Lin - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Daniel A. Givan - University of Alabama at Birmingham
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Journal of prosthodontics, Vol.28(6), pp.659-665
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13088
PMID: 31145492
PMCID: PMC6642729
NLM abbreviation: J Prosthodont
ISSN: 1059-941X
eISSN: 1532-849X
Number of pages: 7
Language: English
Date published: 07/2019
Academic Unit: Prosthodontics
Record Identifier: 9984367725802771

Metrics

7 Record Views

71 Times Cited - Web of Science

See more details