Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2021; 10(03): 144-150
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736373
Original Article

Influence of the Connector Area on the Chipping Rate of the VM9 Veneering Ceramic in a Posterior Four-Unit Yttria-Stabilized Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Pilot Study

Camille Haddad 
1   Department of Prosthodontics and Occlusion, Faculty of Dentistry, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Jean-Marc Meyer
2   School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Mayssaê El Ahmadié
3   Private Practice, Beirut, Lebanon
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the connector area on the chipping rate of the VM9 veneering ceramic in a 4-unit yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) framework, using a novel sonographic technique.

Materials and Methods The framework was designed as a 4-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) with two abutment teeth at the first mandibular premolar and second mandibular molar. The cross-sectional area of the connector was 7.5, 8, or 9 mm2. The prepared teeth were scanned using CAD/CAM technology, and five frameworks were prepared for each design, making a total of 15. The frameworks were divided according to the veneering ceramics: Y-TZP FDPs using Vita VM9 (12 frameworks), and porcelain fused to metal (PFM) FDPs using Vita VM13 (3 frameworks). The specimens were statically loaded until failure. To capture the initiation of the failure within the specimens, a novel sonographic technique, designed for this research, combining acoustic emission and visual monitoring during live load bearing tests, was used to determine the failure load value. Failed frameworks were inspected using a microscope, and failure patterns were identified. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were applied for statistical analysis of the results (p-value ≤ 0.05).

Results Despite the fact that the chipping strength is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the connector, the effect of the cross-sectional area on chipping load revealed no statistically significant differences, while PFMs showed superior chipping strength relative to the zirconia frameworks regardless of the connector's size. A high rate of catastrophic fracture occurred while loading the specimens.

Conclusion The effect of the cross-sectional area on chipping load revealed no statistically significant differences in Y-TZP frameworks. The novel sonographic technique may be a potential method to study the behavior of dental ceramics, including chipping and fracture.

Keywords

chipping rate - connector area - four-unit fixed dental prosthesis - sonographic technique - static load bearing test


Publication History

Article published online:
18 October 2021

© 2021. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Raigrodski AJ, Hillstead MB, Meng GK, Chung KH. Survival and complications of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107 (03) 170-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, Hammerle CH. Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22 (06) 553-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Norström Saarva V, Bjerkstig G, Örtorp A, Svanborg P. A three-year retrospective study on survival of ceramic-veneered zirconia (Y-TZP) fixed dental prostheses performed in private practices. Int J Dent 2017; 2017: 9618306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Soares LM, Soares C, Miranda ME, Basting RT. Influence of core-veneer thickness ratio on the fracture load and failure mode of zirconia crowns. J Prosthodont 2017; 28 (02) 209-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Daou EE. The zirconia ceramic: strengths and weaknesses. Open Dent J 2014; 8: 33-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH. et al. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent 2012; 40 (11) 979-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kou W, Molin M, Sjögren G. Surface roughness of five different dental ceramic core materials after grinding and polishing. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33 (02) 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anusavice KJ, Kakar K, Ferree N. Which mechanical and physical testing methods are relevant for predicting the clinical performance of ceramic-based dental prostheses?. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (Suppl. 03) 218-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Koenig V, Vanheusden AJ, Le Goff SO, Mainjot AK. Clinical risk factors related to failures with zirconia-based restorations: an up to 9-year retrospective study. J Dent 2013; 41 (12) 1164-1174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mainjot AK, Schajer GS, Vanheusden AJ, Sadoun MJ. Influence of cooling rate on residual stress profile in veneering ceramic: measurement by hole-drilling. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (09) 906-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mainjot AK, Schajer GS, Vanheusden AJ, Sadoun MJ. Influence of veneer thickness on residual stress profile in veneering ceramic: measurement by hole-drilling. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (02) 160-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 De Lima E, Meira JBC, Özcan M, Cesar PF. Chipping of veneering ceramics in zirconium dioxide fixed dental prosthesis. Curr Oral Health Rep 2015; 2: 169-173
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ambré MJ, Aschan F, Vult von Steyern P. Fracture strength of yttria-stabilized zirconium-dioxide (Y-TZP) fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with different abutment core thicknesses and connector dimensions. J Prosthodont 2013; 22 (05) 377-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ha SR, Kim SH, Lee JB, Han JS, Yeo IS. Effects of coping designs on fracture modes in zirconia crowns: Progressive load test. Ceram Int 2016; 42: 7380-7389
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Moráguez OD, Wiskott HW, Scherrer SS. Three- to nine-year survival estimates and fracture mechanisms of zirconia- and alumina-based restorations using standardized criteria to distinguish the severity of ceramic fractures. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (09) 2295-2307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fujita Y, Hamamoto Y. A robust automatic crack detection method from noisy concrete surfaces. Mach Vis Appl 2011; 22: 245-254
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Domon H, Koshide S. Basis of Non-destructive Testing. Tokyo: Kbooks; 1996: 149-162
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Lüthy H, Filser F, Loeffel O, Schumacher M, Gauckler LJ, Hammerle CH. Strength and reliability of four-unit all-ceramic posterior bridges. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (10) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Campbell SD, Sozio RB. Evaluation of the fit and strength of an all-ceramic fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59 (03) 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kelly JR. Clinical failure of dental ceramic structures: insights from combined fractography, in vitro testing and finite element analysis. Ceram Trans 1994; 48: 125-136
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Vita Zahnfabrik. Vita Pm9 / Vita Vm9 Add-on Working instructions (Brochure). Bad Sackingen, Germany: Vita Zahnfabrik; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Vita Zahnfabrik. Vita Vm9 Product Information (Brochure). Bad Sackingen, Germany: Vita Zahnfabrik; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Takuma Y, Nomoto S, Sato T, Sugihara N. Effect of framework design on fracture resistance in zirconia 4-unit all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2013; 54 (03) 149-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Al-Wahadni A, Al-Saleh H, Al-Quran F, Hatamleh MM. Fracture resistance of fixed partial dentures supported by different abutment combinations: an ex vivo study. Gen Dent 2012; 60 (05) e295-e301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ha SR, Kim SH, Lee JB, Han JS, Yeo IS, Yoo SH. Effects of coping designs on stress distributions in zirconia crowns: finite element analysis. Ceram Int 2016; 42: 4932-4940
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sax C, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14 (03) 183-202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rinke S, Gersdorff N, Lange K, Roediger M. Prospective evaluation of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 7-year clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26 (02) 164-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Roediger M, Gersdorff N, Huels A, Rinke S. Prospective evaluation of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: four-year clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23 (02) 141-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Salido MP, Martinez-Rus F, del Rio F, Pradies G, Ozcan M, Suarez MJ. Prospective clinical study of zirconia-based posterior four-unit fixed dental prostheses: four-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25 (04) 403-409
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schmitt J, Goellner M, Lohbauer U, Wichmann M, Reich S. Zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 5-year clinical results of a prospective clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25 (06) 585-589
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P, Gabbert O, Ohlmann B. Clinical performance of long-span zirconia frameworks for fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2012; 39 (07) 552-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tartaglia GM, Sidoti E, Sforza C. Seven-year prospective clinical study on zirconia-based single crowns and fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (05) 1137-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N. et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96 (04) 237-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tinschert J, Schulze KA, Natt G, Latzke P, Heussen N, Spiekermann H. Clinical behavior of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures made of DC-Zirkon: 3-year results. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21 (03) 217-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20 (04) 383-388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Ohlmann B, Gabbert O. Clinical performance of extended zirconia frameworks for fixed dental prostheses: two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2009; 36 (08) 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Larsson C, Holm L, Lövgren N, Kokubo Y, Vult von Steyern P. Fracture strength of four-unit Y-TZP FPD cores designed with varying connector diameter. An in-vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34 (09) 702-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tsumita M, Kokubo Y, Ohtsuka T, Nakamura Y, Fakushima S, Steyern PVV. Influences of core frame design on the mechanical strength of posterior all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part 1. Two-dimensional finite element analysis. Tsurumi Univ Dent J 2005; 31: 203-210
    Google Scholar