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, Pages 146-153 PDF (422.96 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.85756.1208 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Ahmed Maghraby* 1; Yousria Atteya Shalaby2; Fayza Hassan Alabbassy3; Amir Shoukry Azer4 | ||
| 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: 382 PDF Download: 776 |
||
