Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns. Issue 6 (11th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lawson, Nathaniel C.; Jurado, Carlos A.; Huang, Chan‐Te; Morris, Geoffrey P.; Burgess, John O.; Liu, Perng‐Ru; Kinderknecht, Keith E.; Lin, Chee Paul; Givan, Daniel A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 28:Issue 6(2019)
• Page Start: 659
• Page End: 665
• Publication Date: 2019-06-11
• Subjects: Cementation -- resin cements; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13088
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

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.