| Literature DB >> 28474002 |
Ennio Bramanti1, Gabriele Cervino1, Floriana Lauritano1, Luca Fiorillo1, Cesare D'Amico1, Sergio Sambataro1, Deborah Denaro1, Fausto Famà2, Gaetano Ierardo3, Antonella Polimeni3, Marco Cicciù1.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to underline the mechanical properties of dental single crown prosthodontics materials in order to differentiate the possibility of using each material for typical clinical condition and masticatory load. Objective of the investigation is to highlight the stress distribution over different common dental crowns by using computer-aided design software and a three-dimensional virtual model. By using engineering systems of analyses like FEM and Von Mises investigations it has been highlighted the strength over simulated lower first premolar crowns made by chrome cobalt alloy, golden alloy, dental resin, and zirconia. The prosthodontics crown models have been created and put on simulated chewing stresses. The three-dimensional models were subjected to axial and oblique forces and both guaranteed expected results over simulated masticatory cycle. Dental resin presented the low value of fracture while high values have been recorded for the metal alloy and zirconia. Clinicians should choose the better prosthetic solution for the teeth they want to restore and replace. Both prosthetic dental crowns offer long-term success if applied following the manufacture guide limitations and suggestions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28474002 PMCID: PMC5394389 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1029574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Density of the material involved in the study.
| Enamel | Dentin | Cancellous bone | 3M Filtek P60 | Arcam ASTM F-75 | HGC-1 | Zirconium carbide | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density [kg/m3] | 2920 | 1970 | 1200 | ? | ? | 17200 | 6645 |
|
| |||||||
| Young's modulus [Mpa] | 80000 | 28100 | 144 ( | 12500 | 241316 | 79000 | 384000 |
| 99 ( | |||||||
| 344 ( | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Shear modulus [Mpa] | 32573 | 10890 | 53 ( | 4464 | 92814 | 28214 | 160670 |
| 63 ( | |||||||
| 45 ( | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Poisson's ratio | 0,228 | 0,29 | 0,23 ( | 0,4 | 0,3 | 0,4 | 0,195 |
| 0,11 ( | |||||||
| 0,13 ( | |||||||
Apparent density.
Features of the cases presented on each material and layer.
| Materials | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal | Intermediate | External | Crown | |
| Model A | Cancellous bone | Human dentin | Enamel | Zirconium |
| Model B | 3M-P60 resin | Zirconium | Zirconium | Zirconium |
| Model C | 3M-P60 resin | ARCAM ASTM F-75 | Zirconium | Zirconium |
| Model D | 3M-P60 resin | 3M-P60 resin | 3M-P60 resin | Zirconium |
| Model E | 3M-P60 resin | HGC-1 | HGC-1 | Zirconium |
| Model F | 3M-P60 resin | ARCAM ASTM F-75 | ARCAM ASTM F-75 | Zirconium |
Mechanical properties from compression tests (n = 10 for each material) and their hardness values of dental hard tissues and dental restorative materials.
| Materials | Maximum stress (MPa) | Elastic modulus (MPa) |
|---|---|---|
| Cortical bone | 182 ± 195 | 70 ± 300 |
| Medullary bone | 51 ± 55 | 730 ± 1360 |
| Enamel | 62.2 ± 23.8 | 1338.2 ± 307.9† |
| Human dentin | 193.7 ± 30.6 | 1653.7 ± 277.9† |
| Gold alloy | 291.2 ± 45.3 | 2323.4 ± 322.4 |
| Dental resin | 274.6 ± 52.2 | 833.1 ± 92.4 |
| Zirconia | 2206.0 ± 522.9 | 3895.2 ± 202.9 |
| Chrome cobalt alloy | 953.4 ± 132.1 | 2222.7 ± 277.6 |
Significant difference (p > 0.05) based on t-test.
†Significant difference (p > 0.1) based on t-test.
Figure 2Sensitivity mesh analysis for number of elements.
Mechanical properties from compression tests (n = 10 for each material) and their hardness values of dental hard tissues and dental restorative materials.
| A | Layer | B | Layer | C | Layer | D | Layer | E | Layer | F | Layer | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Principal Stress [Mpa] | Min | −12 | Ext | −6 | Ext | −8 | Ext | −29 | Ext | −20 | Ext | −10 | Ext |
| Max | 24 | Interm | 31 | Interm | 28 | Interm | 39 | Crown | 33 | Interm | 32 | Interm | |
| Middle Principal Stress [Mpa] | Min | −23 | Ext | −14 | Ext | −17 | Ext | −45 | Ext | −34 | Ext | −18 | Ext |
| Max | 12 | Interm | 14 | Interm | 14 | Interm | 20 | Interm | 20 | Interm | 17 | Interm | |
| Minimum Principal Stress [Mpa] | Min | −94 | Crown | −66 | Crown | −61 | Crown | −118 | Crown | −85 | Crown | −68 | Crown |
| Max | 2 | Interm | 2 | Interm | 3 | Interm | 3 | Interm | 4 | Interm | 3 | Interm | |
Figure 1The mesh model of the dental prosthodontic crown. Shape of each material and layer.
Figure 3As earlier mentioned, the load chosen for the comparative analysis is not purely axial (purely axially along y) but shows a component along x-axis (21%) and a component along y-axis (14%).
Figure 4Different layers of the dental crown analyzed and divided for each material used.
Figure 5Different colors underline the stress distribution area related to the used material. The chrome cobalt alloy and the zirconium crown seem to better distribute the stress around the crown responding to vertical forces. (a) The zirconia crown distributes the stress in all the crown portions and areas even if a little stress is presented on the occlusal zone. ((b) and (c)) Chrome cobalt alloy and gold alloy guarantee perfect resistance to the fracture and a well distribution of the stress. (d) Dental resins show low resistance on fracture.