FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF CAD/CAM ONE-PIECE AND TWO-PIECE POST-CORE-CROWN RESTORATIONS USING TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS (IN VITRO STUDY) | ||||
Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
Article 4, Volume 48, Issue 1, April 2023, Page 146-153 PDF (422.96 K) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.85756.1208 | ||||
View on SCiNiTO | ||||
Authors | ||||
Ahmed Maghraby 1; Yousria Atteya Shalaby2; Fayza Hassan Alabbassy3; Amir Shoukry Azer 4 | ||||
1Faculty of dentistry, Damanhor university | ||||
2Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||||
3Dental Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
4Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Introduction: Restoring teeth that lost significant percentage of coronal structure necessitates using post and core before crown coverage. The most common systems are the one-piece post and core and the two-element system. Recently the one-piece restoration, the Richmond crown, could be milled using CAD/CAM to rehabilitate severely damaged teeth. A variety of aesthetic materials have become available for milling. Aim: To compare between the fracture resistance (FR) of one-piece and two-piece post-core-crown restorations using two different materials; hybrid ceramic (HC) and zirconia (ZR). Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 20 artificial maxillary canines. The teeth were prepared then randomly divided as follows: Group I, one-piece post-crown restoration (N=10) which were further subdivided into Subgroup IA: hybrid ceramic and Subgroup IB: zirconia. Group II, two-piece post-core and cemented crown (N=10) which were also subdivided into Subgroup IIA: hybrid ceramic, and Subgroup IIB: zirconia. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance testing using universal testing machine followed by analyzing the failed specimens with the stereomicroscope. Results were statistically analyzed using F test (ANOVA) and Post-hoc test (Tukey), significance was judged at 5%. Results: The FR values (mean±SD in Newtons) were 386.6 ± 25.78N for subgroup IA, 522.2 ± 70.56N for subgroup IB, 429.6 ± 91.87N for subgroup IIA, and 648.6 ± 93.37N for subgroup IIB with no significant difference in FR between the one-piece and the two-piece restorations using either HC or Zr. Conclusion: The one-piece post-crown restorations showed good performance regarding fracture resistance. | ||||
Keywords | ||||
Post and core; Zirconia; Hybrid ceramic; Richmond crown | ||||
Statistics Article View: 280 PDF Download: 451 |
||||