Effect of CAD–CAM Framework Design Fabricated from Sintered Cobalt–Chromium Alloy on Fracture Resistance of Metal–Ceramic Restorations

Afshar, Kourosh; Falahchai, Mehran; Ansarilari, Homeira; Tajziehchi, Gelareh

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3788590

International Journal of Dentistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 3788590 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3788590

Effect of CAD–CAM Framework Design Fabricated from Sintered Cobalt–Chromium Alloy on Fracture Resistance of Metal–Ceramic Restorations

Kourosh Afshar,¹Mehran Falahchai,²Homeira Ansarilari,¹and Gelareh Tajziehchi³

Academic Editor: Murilo Baena Lopes

Received24 Nov 2022

Revised29 Mar 2023

Accepted27 Apr 2023

Published30 May 2023

Abstract

Introduction. Porcelain fracture is a common problem of metal–ceramic restorations (MCRs). One suggested strategy to prevent it is to modify the metal framework design; however, the available information regarding the effect of framework design on porcelain fracture is scarce. Objective. This study aimed to assess the effect of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) framework design fabricated from sintered cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) alloy on fracture resistance of MCRs. Materials and Methods. Twenty premolar metal dies were fabricated for this in vitro study. Ten standard frameworks were designed with 0.5 mm thickness, and 10 customized frameworks were designed with 1 mm thickness at the lingual margin and 0.5 mm thickness in all other areas. All specimens were fabricated from sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron) using soft metal milling technology. After porcelain application, the specimens underwent thermocycling and cyclic loading for 3,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C. The fracture resistance was measured by a universal testing machine. The failure mode was also determined. Data were statistically analyzed by independent t-test (α = 0.05). Results. The mean fracture resistance of porcelain was 2,379 ± 531 N in the standard and 2,557 ± 448 N in the customized group. No significant difference was found in fracture resistance of the two groups (). All specimens in both groups showed mixed failure. Conclusion. The fracture resistance of porcelain and the failure mode were not affected by the framework design of MCRs fabricated from sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron).

1. Introduction

Metal–ceramic restorations (MCRs) are still widely used despite the advances in dental materials [1]. MCRs were the gold-standard prosthetic restorations in the past 40 years [2–4]. The metal framework of MCRs can be fabricated by the lost-wax technique, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) milling technology, or selective laser melting method [5, 6]. One significant advantage of the milling technique is that restorations are fabricated under standardized conditions. Thus, casting errors and porosities that can compromise the quality of restorations are largely prevented [7–9]. A high percentage of restoration problems occur due to impression and casting errors [9–11]. Also, the CAD–CAM milling technology has advantages such as lower dependence on the operator’s skills, shorter working time, and higher precision due to fewer procedural steps, compared with the lost-wax technique. Thus, the CAD–CAM milling technology has gained increasing popularity [9, 11, 12].

Cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) alloy is commonly used in clinical dental practice. The milled Co–Cr metal frameworks can be produced by hard metal milling (HMM) or soft metal milling (SMM) techniques. In the HMM technique, fewer errors occur compared with the casting method; however, the HMM technique is costly due to equipment wear as the result of metal hardness. The SMM of Co–Cr alloy is more cost-effective and less time-consuming than the HMM and casting techniques. In the SMM process, the metal is dry-milled and sintered at high temperatures to reach its full density with 10% volumetric shrinkage; therefore, after SMM, the Co–Cr alloy shows improved mechanical properties [13–15].

Chipping and fracture of porcelain are common and are regarded as the second most frequent cause of failure of MCRs after dental caries, with a prevalence rate of 2.3%–8% [16–19]. Trauma, inadequate occlusal adjustment, parafunctional habits, flexural fatigue, mismatch of the coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of metal and porcelain, inappropriate framework design, and errors in laboratory procedures are among the factors that may cause or contribute to chipping or fracture of porcelain [16, 20]. Several strategies have been suggested to minimize the rate of porcelain fracture, such as modifying the framework design [21].

The conventional framework design has 0.5 mm thickness in all areas. To improve the fracture resistance of restorations, the framework thickness in one commonly used modified design has increased to 1 mm at the lingual cervical margin, which increases to 2 mm and then continues to reach the proximal strut with 3.5 mm height. The thickness is 0.5 mm in all other areas [21, 22].

Several in vitro studies have evaluated the effect of CAD–CAM fabricated zirconia framework designs on fracture resistance [23–32]. Moreover, some studies evaluated the effect of framework design on fracture resistance of MCRs fabricated with the lost-wax technique [21, 22, 33]. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the effect of CAD–CAM framework design of MCRs fabricated from a soft metal alloy on porcelain fracture resistance has not been previously evaluated. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effect of CAD–CAM framework design fabricated from sintered Co–Cr alloy on fracture resistance of MCRs. The null hypothesis of the study was that there would be no significant difference between the fracture resistance of MCRs fabricated from sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron) with standard and customized framework designs.

2. Materials and Methods

In this in vitro experimental study, the minimum sample size was calculated to be 10 in each group [34] assuming the statistical study power of 0.80, error rate of 0.05, standard deviations of 5.72 and 2.63 in the two groups, and d = 5.83, using the following Equation (1):

Twenty single-unit premolar MCRs were divided into two groups with customized framework design (n = 10) and standard framework design (n = 10) according to previous studies [19, 35]. Twenty maxillary second premolar acrylic teeth were collected and prepared with a deep-chamfer finish line with 1.2 mm depth and 8° occlusal taper of the walls along with 2 mm of occlusal reduction of the functional cusp and 1.5 mm of occlusal reduction of the nonfunctional cusp [21, 36]. The functional cusp was also beveled. The prepared acrylic tooth was scanned by using a desktop scanner (Ceramil Map400, Amann Girrbach AG, Koblach, Austria). The dies were carved out of wax discs (Yamahachi, Japan) by using a milling machine (Ceramil Motion 2, Amann Girrbach AG). The wax dies were then sprued and invested using phosphate-bonded investment (Z4 Universal Investment, N75, Belgium). The metal die was then cast (Duccatron Quattro, Ugin dentaire, France) with Co–Cr alloy (Magnum Ceramic Co., MESSA, Italy) [9, 37, 38]. The metal die was fixed on an acrylic stand and placed in a surveyor to make the necessary corrections in the preparation. Next, the metal die was scanned by a desktop scanner (Ceramil Map400; Amann Girrbach AG), and the data were transferred to CAD software (Ceramil mind CAD workstation; Amann Girrbach AG). The software program identified the finish lines, and the absence of undercuts was ensured [17, 39, 40].

Ten standard and ten customized frameworks were designed using the software (Ceramill Mind; Amann Girrbach AG). The thickness of the standard framework design was 0.5 mm in all areas. The customized framework design had 1 mm thickness in the lingual cervical margin, which increased to 2 mm and then continued to reach the proximal strut with 3.5 mm height. The thickness was 0.5 mm in all other areas [21, 22]. In both framework designs, the software considered 50 µm space as the die spacer with 1 mm distance from the finish line (Figure 1). The sintered Co–Cr alloy blanks (Ceramill Sintron; Amann Girrbach AG) were dry-milled by using a communicating milling machine (Ceramil motion2; Amann Girrbach AG). The specimens were then sintered in a sintering furnace (Argovent, Ceramill Argotherm; Amann Girrbach AG) using inert argon gas at 1,280°C temperature for 6 hr. The fabricated specimens were all homogenous and did not have any distortion. Table 1 shows the properties of the alloy used.

All specimens were visually inspected, and those with surface flaws or defects were replaced. Prior to veneering, the surface of the specimens was sandblasted (Basic eco microblaster, Renfort, Germany) with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles from 10 mm distance at 45° angle for 20 s under 3 bar pressure according to the manufacturer’s instructions. They were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath containing 80% ethanol for 5 min. The specimens were then placed in a furnace (Programat p310, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schann, Lichtenstein) for oxidation and degaussing.

The metal die was first scanned by a desktop scanner (Ceramil Map400; Amann Girrbach AG) and then a full-contour crown was designed by the Ceramill Mind design software. The wax pattern of the final crown was carved out of a wax disc (Yamahachi, Japan). The wax crown was placed on the die, and a putty index was obtained to standardize the porcelain application procedure. Two layers of opaque paste (Opaquer A3, Inline, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schann, Liechtenstein) were applied to all specimens. Then, the porcelain body (Schann, Liechtenstein) was applied to the specimens using the silicon index. The porcelain was finally glazed (Figure 2). The porcelain was sintered in a furnace (Programat p310, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein) according to the protocol described in Table 2. To prevent procedural errors, all the steps were carried out by a technician blinded to the study objectives. The CTE of porcelain was 12.9 ± 0.5 × 10–6 K, while the CTE of metal was 14.5 × 10–6 K.

(a)

(b)

Before cementation, the internal walls of the crowns and the metal dies were cleaned with alcohol and water steam. A thin layer of self-adhesive resin luting agent (RelyX Unicem, 3 M ESPE) was applied to the inner surface of the crowns. The restorations were then seated firmly on the die using finger pressure for 2 min. Then, they were maintained under 2.2 kg vertical force for 15 min and the excess cement was removed [38, 41]. One hour after cementation, the specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 1 week.

In order to simulate the oral clinical conditions, the specimens underwent thermocycling for 3,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C. Each cycle lasted for 60 s with a dwell time of 20 s and a transfer time of 20 s. This protocol simulated 2.5 years of clinical service [17, 39, 40].

For cyclic loading, 20 metal dies were mounted in acrylic molds (Acropars acrylic resins, Marlic Co., Tehran, Iran), the crowns were seated, and the specimens were finally placed in a chewing simulator (CS4; SD, Mechatronik GMBH, Feldkirchen, Germany). The specimens were immersed in deionized water during the cyclic loading process [42]. Next, they underwent 100,000 cycles with 100 N load and 1 Hz frequency, corresponding to 2–3 months of clinical service (Figure 3(a)) [43].

(a)

(b)

(c)

They were placed in a tension/compression testing machine (Universal testing machine, DBBP 200, Santam, Tehran, Iran) with 200 KGFKGF capacity. The vertical load was applied by a stainless-steel round-end rod with 5 mm diameter parallel to the longitudinal axis at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture [38]. To simulate contact with the opposing tooth, vertical load (N) was applied to the center of restorations. For this purpose, the load was applied to the triangular ridges of both facial and palatal cusps (Figures 3(b) and 3(c)) [44].

The load-causing specimen fracture was recorded in Newtons (N). All specimens were inspected with the naked eye and also under a stereomicroscope (SMZ800, Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) at ×10 magnification to determine the mode of failure (as adhesive: between the alloy or ceramic and the oxide layer, cohesive: within the alloy or the ceramic material, or mixed: a combination of adhesive and cohesive) [7]. The flowchart of the present study design is shown in Figure 4.

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality of data distribution, and Levene’s test was applied to analyze the homogeneity of variances. The fracture resistance of the two groups was compared by the independent t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.

3. Results

As shown in Table 3, the mean and standard deviation of fracture resistance were 2,379 ± 531 N in the standard and 2,557 ± 448 N in the customized group. According to the independent t-test, this difference was not statistically significant (). As shown in Figure 5, all specimens in both groups showed mixed failure.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

4. Discussion

This in vitro study assessed the effect of CAD–CAM framework design on porcelain fracture resistance of maxillary second premolar MCRs. The results revealed no significant difference in fracture resistance between the standard and customized framework designs. Thus, the null hypothesis of the study was accepted.

In vitro simulation of the clinical setting is often challenging. Fatigue is highly important in the clinical setting because restorations are subjected to different masticatory loads in the oral environment [45]. Moreover, water plays an essential role in the propagation of small cracks [7, 17, 46, 47]. Evidence shows that thermal and mechanical stresses adversely affect the metal–ceramic bond strength. Thus, specimens that have not undergone aging are expected to show higher bond strength and fracture resistance [48, 49]. Therefore, in the present study, the specimens underwent thermocycling and cyclic loading prior to the final testing of fracture resistance.

Using human teeth in such studies can lead to a more realistic simulation of the clinical setting [50]. However, human teeth are highly variable in terms of size, shape, and quality, and standardization of all specimens is not possible [51] Storage conditions and time passed since tooth extraction can also affect the fracture resistance and failure mode of the teeth [37]. Therefore, other materials such as metals, brass, epoxy resin, and composite resin have been suggested as alternatives; among which, it has been shown that composite resins are prone to premature fracture when using high-strength crowns [52]. The effect of the type of the supporting die on fracture resistance has been investigated in various types of all-ceramic restorations, reporting different results depending on the type of ceramic restoration [53, 54]. Sagsoz et al. [53] evaluated feldspathic monolithic ceramic crowns, and stated that metal and epoxy resin dies can be used in vitro. However, some other studies on all-ceramic crowns found that the elastic modulus of metal dies is much higher than that of human teeth and they deform less under forces, resulting in less stress accumulation in the inner surface of the crown [55]. They stated that the higher the elastic modulus of the substrate, the higher the reported fracture strength would be [51]. Therefore, when comparing the results of different studies, the type of the supporting die should be taken into account as an important parameter. However, the authors of the present study did not find any study on the effect of type of the supporting die on fracture resistance of MCRs. Many studies are available on MCRs with a metal die [22, 40, 56], which has an elastic modulus different from that of dentin. Therefore, the actual stress distribution in crowns cemented on human teeth is different from that in crowns cemented on a metal die [37]. In the present study, a metal die was used to standardize the preparation design of all substrates for the conduction of the loading test, but it may also be considered a limitation of the present study.

Also, deionized water was used as a lubricant in the process of cyclic loading in the present study. The specimens were thoroughly immersed in water. According to a previous study [42], since the type of liquid has no significant effect on the friction coefficient of natural teeth, deionized water was used instead of artificial saliva due to its availability and low cost.

According to the present results, the mean fracture resistance of porcelain was 2,379 ± 531 N in the standard and 2,557 ± 448 N in the customized group. Both framework designs could well tolerate the average bite force in the molar region (720 N) [57]. The maximum bite force can vary greatly. The average value in the molar region is 847 N in males and 597 N in females. The maximum bite force in patients with bruxism can exceed 800 N [58]. In another study, conducted on dentate young adults, the maximum bite force for individuals with bruxism was reported to be 806 N [59].

This study evaluated the MCRs fabricated from sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron) by using the CAD–CAM technology, which is different from the methodology and materials used in studies conducted on MCRs fabricated by the lost-wax technique [21–23] or studies conducted on all-ceramic crowns with zirconia frameworks fabricated by using the CAD–CAM technology [19, 38, 60]. The present results revealed no significant difference in fracture resistance of porcelain in customized and standard framework designs fabricated from the sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron) by using the CAD–CAM technology. This finding was in agreement with the results of Lorenzoni et al. [21] They demonstrated that the Ni–Cr framework design fabricated by the lost-wax technique had no significant effect on the fatigue life, although they did not perform thermocycling. In contrast, Bonfante et al. [22] and Bulbule and Motwani [33] showed that the Ni–Cr framework design fabricated by the lost-wax technique for maxillary premolars and maxillary central incisors significantly affected the fracture resistance of porcelain in MCRs [22, 33]. Unlike the present study, the abovementioned two studies did not perform cyclic loading or thermocycling for the aging of specimens. Differences in the type of alloy, framework design, type of tooth, and absence of aging simulation can explain the difference in the results. Moreover, previous studies on zirconia frameworks showed that the CAD–CAM framework design affected the fracture resistance of porcelain [19, 23, 24, 27, 38, 60]. Aside from the difference in framework material, different framework designs and absence of aging simulation in the abovementioned studies are the possible reasons for the variability in the results.

The mode of failure of MCRs can be adhesive (at the metal–porcelain interface), cohesive (within the metal or porcelain), or mixed (a mixture of adhesive fracture at the metal–porcelain interface and cohesive fracture within the ceramic or metal) [18]. In the present study, all fractures were mixed in both groups, which was in agreement with the results of Bonfante et al. [22] who reported that all fractures of porcelain fused to metal restorations caused coping exposure. Suleiman and von Steyern [7] reported that most specimens experienced a mixed fracture in their study. Cohesive fracture also occurred in some specimens, but no case of adhesive fracture was seen. The type, thickness, and properties of the cement used are among the influential factors on the failure mode of all-ceramic restorations, although conflicting results have been reported in this regard [61, 62]. It has been shown that the low elastic modulus of resin cement compared with glass ionomer cement results in the generation of flexural stresses during force application [62]. Furthermore, increasing the cement thickness can also cause deflection in the cement layer and generation of tensile stress in the crown surface [61]. In all-ceramic restorations, the internal surface is usually the main origin of fracture, especially in glass ceramics [63, 64]. Therefore, repeated tensile stresses at the core-cement interface can result in radial fractures, which are clinically manifested as bulk fractures [65, 66]. Despite the extensive research on metal–ceramic restorations, comprehensive characterization of their failure modes [21] and the effect of different parameters such as the type of cement in this respect are in need of further investigations.

In the current study, the failure of metal–ceramic restorations included actual fracture of the veneering porcelain; while, Lorenzoni et al. [21] demonstrated field damage by creating internal and external cone cracks without actual fracture of the veneering porcelain. Therefore, future studies are recommended to assess the core–cement interface. However, it has been reported that in studies that use spherical indents (such as the present study), the resulting cone cracks are more related to high stresses at the contact surface rather than tensile stresses at the cement–crown interface [67].

Despite all considerations, the present study had an in vitro design, and therefore could not perfectly simulate the clinical oral conditions. Similar to many other in vitro studies, the specimens were only subjected to vertical loads in the present study. In the oral environment, however, the MCRs are subjected to loads applied from different directions. This difference is a limitation of the present study that limits the generalizability of the results to the clinical setting. Further studies are recommended to assess and compare the effect of different alloys, die materials, cements, framework designs, and fabrication methods on fracture resistance of MCRs.

5. Conclusion

Considering the limitations of this study, the standard and customized sintered Co–Cr alloy (Ceramill Sintron) framework designs fabricated by using the CAD–CAM technology had no significant effect on fracture resistance of porcelain in MCRs. Also, the porcelain failure mode was mixed in all specimens, irrespective of the framework design.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study will be available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for the helpful advice on several technical issues and support by the late Dr. Seyyed Mostafa Fatemi. May his gentle soul rest in peace.

References

M. Rafi Ullah Awan, H. Asghar, H. Raza, F. Rasul, and M. S. Baig, “Porcelain metal ceramic crown versus porcelain veneer,” The Professional Medical Journal, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 709–713, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aslam, S. H. Hassan, M. Nayyer, and B. Ahmed, “Intraoral repair protocols for fractured metal–ceramic restorations–Literature review,” South African Dental Journal, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Limones, P. Molinero-Mourelle, L. Azevedo, M. Romeo-Rubio, A. Correia, and M. Gómez-Polo, “Zirconia–ceramic versus metal–ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 230–238.e7, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Suarez, C. Perez, J. Pelaez, C. Lopez-Suarez, and E. Gonzalo, “A randomized clinical trial comparing zirconia and metal–ceramic three-unit posterior fixed partial dentures: a 5-year follow-up,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 750–756, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. T. Akçin, M. Barış Güncü, G. Aktaş, and Y. Aslan, “Effect of manufacturing techniques on the marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium implant-supported multiunit frameworks,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 715–720, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E.-J. Bae, J.-H. Kim, and J. Y. Lim, “Evaluation of internal fit of press ceramic and porous structured cobalt–chromium crown fabricated by additive manufacturing,” Dental Research Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, Article ID 65, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Suleiman and P. V. von Steyern, “Fracture strength of porcelain fused to metal crowns made of cast, milled or laser-sintered cobalt–chromium,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1280–1289, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Sulaiman, “Materials in digital dentistry—a review,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 171–181, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Klein, M. Krespach, S. Spintzyk, D. Wolff, C. von Ohle, and C. Meller, “Restorative CAD/CAM materials in dentistry: analysis of their fluorescence properties and the applicability of the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT),” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 25, pp. 4579–4589, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chiu, Y.-W. Chen, J. Hayashi, and A. Sadr, “Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 4, Article ID 1157, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Tobar, V. Rodriguez, C. Lopez-Suarez, J. Pelaez, and M. J. Suarez, “Influence of digital technologies and framework design on the load to fracture of Co–Cr posterior fixed partial denture frameworks,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 606–613, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F.-Y. Su, J.-C. Tsai, D. Morton, and W.-S. Lin, “Use of intraoral scan for implant-supported dental prosthesis to design and fabricate a CAD–CAM verification device: a dental technique,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 204–207, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mohammadi, M. Mahabadi, G. Tabbakhian, and M. Talaakoob, “Bond strength of porcelain to milled sintered and casting base metal alloys,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 21–26, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Kaleli, O. Ekren, Y. Uçar, and Ç. Ural, “Evaluation of the flexural strength of metal frameworks fabricated by sintering-based computer-aided manufacturing methods,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 936.e1–936.e7, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-H. Hong, D.-H. Lee, T. Hanawa, and T.-Y. Kwon, “Comparison of microstructures and mechanical properties of 3 cobalt–chromium alloys fabricated with soft metal milling technology,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 489–496, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Behr, F. Zeman, T. Baitinger et al., “The clinical performance of porcelain-fused-to-metal precious alloy single crowns: chipping, recurrent caries, periodontitis, and loss of retention,” The International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 153–160, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Kaleli and D. Saraç, “Comparison of porcelain bond strength of different metal frameworks prepared by using conventional and recently introduced fabrication methods,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 76–82, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Xiang, X.-Z. Xin, J. Chen, and B. Wei, “Metal–ceramic bond strength of Co–Cr alloy fabricated by selective laser melting,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 453–457, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ferrari, A. Giovannetti, M. Carrabba et al., “Fracture resistance of three porcelain-layered CAD/CAM zirconia frame designs,” Dental Materials, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. e163–e168, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Sipahi and M. Özcan, “Interfacial shear bond strength between different base metal alloys and five low fusing feldspathic ceramic systems,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 333–337, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. C. Lorenzoni, L. M. Martins, N. R. F. A. Silva et al., “Fatigue life and failure modes of crowns systems with a modified framework design,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 626–634, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Bonfante, N. R. F. A. da Silva, P. G. Coelho, D. E. Bayardo-González, V. P. Thompson, and G. Bonfante, “Effect of framework design on crown failure,” European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 194–199, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. F. Alsubaiy, S. Chaturvedi, O. A. Qutub et al., “Novel CAD–CAM zirconia coping design to enhance the aesthetics and strength for anterior PLZ crowns,” Technology and Health Care, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1161–1171, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Juntavee and S. Kornrum, “Effect of marginal designs on fracture strength of high translucency monolithic zirconia crowns,” International Journal of Dentistry, vol. 2020, Article ID 8875609, 10 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ó. Barro, F. Arias-González, F. Lusquiños et al., “Effect of four manufacturing techniques (casting, laser directed energy deposition, milling and selective laser melting) on microstructural, mechanical and electrochemical properties of Co–Cr dental alloys, before and after PFM firing process,” Metals, vol. 10, no. 10, Article ID 1291, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Padrós, M. Punset, M. Molmeneu et al., “Mechanical properties of CoCr dental-prosthesis restorations made by three manufacturing processes. influence of the microstructure and topography,” Metals, vol. 10, no. 6, Article ID 788, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-H. Ko, C.-J. Park, L.-R. Cho, and Y.-H. Huh, “Effect of core design on fracture resistance of zirconia–lithium disilicate anterior bilayered crowns,” The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 181–188, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kuroda, A. Shinya, and H. Gomi, “Effect of frame design on the fracture strength of a zirconia crown and porcelain-faced crown,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 323–328, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Partiyan, E. Osman, M. M. Rayyan, M. Aboushelib, A. Ibrahim, and R. Jimbo, “Fracture resistance of three-unit zirconia fixed partial denture with modified framework,” Odontology, vol. 105, pp. 62–67, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Kanat, E. M. Cömlekoğlu, M. Dündar-Çömlekoğlu, B. H. Sen, M. Ozcan, and M. A. Güngör, “Effect of various veneering techniques on mechanical strength of computer-controlled zirconia framework designs,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 445–455, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Kanat-Ertürk, E. M. Çömlekoğlu, M. Dündar-Çömlekoğlu, M. Özcan, and M. A. Güngör, “Effect of veneering methods on zirconia framework—veneer ceramic adhesion and fracture resistance of single crowns,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 620–628, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kamio, F. Komine, K. Taguchi, T. Iwasaki, M. B. Blatz, and H. Matsumura, “Effects of framework design and layering material on fracture strength of implant-supported zirconia-based molar crowns,” Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1407–1413, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Bulbule and B. K. Motwani, “Comparative study of fracture resistance of porcelain in metal ceramic restorations by using different metal coping designs—an in vitro study,” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. ZC123–ZC127, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-T. Hong and S.-Y. Shin, “A comparative study on the bond strength of porcelain to the millingable Pd–Ag alloy,” The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 372–378, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-C. Brunner and M. Özcan, “Load bearing capacity and Weibull characteristics of inlay-retained resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis made of all-ceramic, fiber-reinforced composite and metal–ceramic after cyclic loading,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 109, Article ID 103855, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Shah, P. Badwaik, V. H. Sheth, V. Bhatnagar, N. Bhanushali, and P. Patil, “Effect of different finish line preparations on the marginal and internal adaptation of cobalt–chromium metal alloy copings fabricated by using CAD-CAM technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 716–728.e6, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. X. Michalakis, A. Stratos, H. Hirayama, K. Kang, F. Touloumi, and Y. Oishi, “Fracture resistance of metal ceramic restorations with two different margin designs after exposure to masticatory simulation,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 172–178, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Urapepon and P. Taenguthai, “The effect of zirconia framework design on the failure of all-ceramic crown under static loading,” The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 146–150, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Wang, Q. Feng, N. Li, and S. Xu, “Evaluation of metal-ceramic bond characteristics of three dental Co–Cr alloys prepared with different fabrication techniques,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 916–923, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-P. Krug, A. W. Knauber, and F. P. Nothdurft, “Fracture behavior of metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses with frameworks from cast or a newly developed sintered cobalt-chromium alloy,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 19, pp. 401–411, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Kassem, O. Atta, and O. El-Mowafy, “Fatigue resistance and microleakage of CAD/CAM ceramic and composite molar crowns,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 28–32, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. DeLong and W. H. Douglas, “An artificial oral environment for testing dental materials,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 339–345, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Alvarez-Arenal, I. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, H. deLlanos-Lanchares, A. Brizuela-Velasco, J. Pinés-Hueso, and J. Ellakuria-Echebarria, “Retention strength after compressive cyclic loading of five luting agents used in implant-supported prostheses,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, Article ID 2107027, 7 pages, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Al-Omari, R. Shadid, L. Abu-Naba’a, and B. E. Masoud, “Porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained, cement-retained, and screw–cement-retained implant-supported metal ceramic posterior crowns,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 263–273, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hawthan, B. R. Chrcanovic, and C. Larsson, “Retrospective study comparing clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses in matched groups of bruxer and nonbruxer patients,” International Journal of Dentistry, vol. 2022, Article ID 6818170, 7 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Vult von Steyern, S. Ebbesson, J. Holmgren, P. Haag, and K. Nilner, “Fracture strength of two oxide ceramic crown systems after cyclic pre-loading and thermocycling,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 682–689, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Robert Kelly, “Dental ceramics: current thinking and trends,” Dental Clinics of North America, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 513–530, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Stawarczyk, M. Eichberger, R. Hoffmann et al., “A novel CAD/CAM base metal compared to conventional CoCrMo alloys: an in-vitro study of the long-term metal–ceramic bond strength,” Oral Health and Dental Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 446–452, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Lopez-Suarez, C. Tobar, M. F. Sola-Ruiz, J. Pelaez, and M. J. Suarez, “Effect of thermomechanical and static loading on the load to fracture of metal-ceramic, monolithic, and veneered zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Nawafleh, M. Hatamleh, S. Elshiyab, and F. Mack, “Lithium disilicate restorations fatigue testing parameters: a systematic review,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 116–126, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. R. Cho, H. Y. Song, J. Y. Koak, and S. J. Heo, “Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceromer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns: effect of variations in preparation design,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 388–395, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Jian, T. Zhang, X. Wang, L. Kyaw, E. H. N. Pow, and K. Zhao, “Effect of supporting dies’ mechanical properties on fracture behavior of monolithic zirconia molar crowns,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 249–255, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. P. Sagsoz, N. Yanikoğlu, and O. Sagsoz, “Effect of die materials on the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM monolithic crown restorations,” Oral Health and Dental Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 165–168, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. T. Yucel, I. Yondem, F. Aykent, and O. Eraslan, “Influence of the supporting die structures on the fracture strength of all-ceramic materials,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 16, pp. 1105–1110, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kashkari, B. Yilmaz, W. A. Brantley, S. R. Schricker, and W. M. Johnston, “Fracture analysis of monolithic CAD–CAM crowns,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 346–352, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Aburaisi and H. Elbishari, “Effect of palatal metal collar’s height on fracture resistance of single metal–ceramic crowns,” International Journal of Dentistry, vol. 2022, Article ID 8290538, 9 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Gibbs, P. E. Mahan, H. C. Lundeen, K. Brehnan, E. K. Walsh, and W. B. Holbrook, “Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 443–449, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Waltimo and M. Könönen, “A novel bite force recorder and maximal isometric bite force values for healthy young adults,” European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 171–175, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Cosme, S. M. Baldisserotto, S. de Andrade Canabarro, and R. S. Shinkai, “Bruxism and voluntary maximal bite force in young dentate adults,” The International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 328–332, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Seyyedan, A. Fayyaz, A. Faraghat, S. Habibzadeh, and H. Sazgara, “Effect of zirconia substructure design on the in-vitro fracture load of molar zirconia core crowns,” Journal Dental School, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 86–94, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
L. G. May, J. Robert Kelly, M. A. Bottino, and T. Hill, “Effects of cement thickness and bonding on the failure loads of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns: multi-physics FEA modeling and monotonic testing,” Dental Materials, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. e99–e109, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. G. May, J. Robert Kelly, M. A. Bottino, and T. Hill, “Influence of the resin cement thickness on the fatigue failure loads of CAD/CAM feldspathic crowns,” Dental Materials, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 895–900, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Rekow, Y. Zhang, and V. Thompson, “Can material properties predict survival of all-ceramic posterior crowns?” Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 362–368, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Rekow and V. P. Thompson, “Near-surface damage–a persistent problem in crowns obtained by computer-aided design and manufacturing,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 219, no. 4, pp. 233–243, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Kim, Y. Zhang, M. Pines, and V. P. Thompson, “Fracture of porcelain-veneered structures in fatigue,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 142–146, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-W. Kim, J.-H. Kim, M. N. Janal, and Y. Zhang, “Damage maps of veneered zirconia under simulated mastication,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 1127–1132, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Robert Kelly, P. Rungruanganunt, B. Hunter, and F. Vailati, “Development of a clinically validated bulk failure test for ceramic crowns,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 228–238, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Kourosh Afshar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

397

Downloads

217

Citations