Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials—an in vitro comparison
- 18 Downloads
The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the tooth structure removal required for currently available ceramic crown materials.
Material and methods
Ninety typodont teeth (60 incisors, 30 molars) were assigned to nine study groups. The teeth were digitized, weighed with a high-precision balance, and fixed in carriers in identical alignment. Full-crown restorations were prepared according to material-specific guidelines for monolithic zirconia (MZ), polymer-infiltrated ceramics (PIC), buccally veneered zirconia (BVZ), feldspathic ceramics (FC), fully veneered zirconia (FVZ), and lithium disilicate (LD). Tooth structure removal was assessed by weighing the teeth before and after preparation. Coronal volume loss was analyzed statistically by use of one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests with α = 0.05.
Mean tooth structure removal for incisors was 42% (SD 2%) for MZ, 46% (SD 1%) for PIC, 50% (SD 2%) for BVZ, 57% (SD 1%) for FC, 57% (SD 2%) for FVZ, and 59% (SD 2%) for LD. Mean tooth structure removal for molars was 21% (SD 2%) for MZ, 31% (SD 1%) for PIC, and 35% (SD 1%) for LD. Inter-group differences were statistically significant, except for between FC and FVZ.
Preparation of full ceramic crowns for restoration-free teeth is an invasive procedure. Selecting the ceramic material can, however, reduce loss of tooth structure substantially.
Monolithic zirconia is the least invasive material for the preparation of incisor and molar ceramic single crowns. Prescribing buccally veneered instead of fully veneered zirconia reduces preparation invasiveness significantly.
KeywordsCeramic crowns Preparation design Tooth substance removal Minimally invasive procedures
English language correction was performed by Hazel Davies, copy editor. Sebastian Schwindling was supported by the Physician Scientist Program of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg.
The work was supported by the Department of Prosthodontics of Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 5.Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2015) All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 31:603–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE (2016) Corrigendum to “all-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth- supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs)” [dental materials 31 (6) (2015) 603–623]. Dent Mater 32:e389–e390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancopé K, Davi LR, Mendonca G, Cooper LF, Soares CJ (2014) Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 112:1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar