Junhui Wang1, Baize Zhang1, Yujiang Chen1, Lulu Wang1, Yang Du1, Xiaojing Wang2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease & Shaanxi Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Children, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, No.145, Changle West Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease & Shaanxi Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Children, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, No.145, Changle West Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. wxjingpd@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the different restoration types of primary teeth to determine which type is appropriate for extensive caries of primary molars and incisors based on mechanical properties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 primary teeth were evaluated in this study, including 80 incisors and 80 molars. Each category was divided into four groups: the control group, composite resin group, pre-veneered stainless steel crown (stainless steel crown) group, and zirconia crown group. Compressive strength test and fatigue strength test were performed. RESULTS: The compressive strength and fatigue strength of the composite resin group were significantly decreased compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The prefabricated crown groups showed increased fatigue and compressive strength compared with the control group, and the zirconia crown group was higher than that of the pre-veneered stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05). The zirconia crown group was less than the stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05) in the compressive strength but more than the stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05) in the fatigue strength. CONCLUSIONS: The compressive strength and fatigue strength of crown restoration were superior to that of the composite resin filling. The fatigue strength of the zirconia crown also performed better than the pre-veneered stainless steel crown and the stainless steel crown. The compressive strength of the zirconia crown was less than that of the stainless steel crown. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The zirconia crown is a new restoration method for primary teeth that may be commonly applied in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the different restoration types of primary teeth to determine which type is appropriate for extensive caries of primary molars and incisors based on mechanical properties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 primary teeth were evaluated in this study, including 80 incisors and 80 molars. Each category was divided into four groups: the control group, composite resin group, pre-veneered stainless steel crown (stainless steel crown) group, and zirconia crown group. Compressive strength test and fatigue strength test were performed. RESULTS: The compressive strength and fatigue strength of the composite resin group were significantly decreased compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The prefabricated crown groups showed increased fatigue and compressive strength compared with the control group, and the zirconia crown group was higher than that of the pre-veneered stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05). The zirconia crown group was less than the stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05) in the compressive strength but more than the stainless steel crown group (P < 0.05) in the fatigue strength. CONCLUSIONS: The compressive strength and fatigue strength of crown restoration were superior to that of the composite resin filling. The fatigue strength of the zirconia crown also performed better than the pre-veneered stainless steel crown and the stainless steel crown. The compressive strength of the zirconia crown was less than that of the stainless steel crown. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The zirconia crown is a new restoration method for primary teeth that may be commonly applied in clinical practice.
Authors: Ivar Espelid; John Cairns; Jan E Askildsen; Vibeke Qvist; Torunn Gaarden; Anne B Tveit Journal: Eur J Oral Sci Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.612