Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Cemented Monolithic Zirconium Crown Using Different Types of Luting Agents: In vitro Comparative Study | Abstract

International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences (IJMRHS)
ISSN: 2319-5886 Indexed in: ESCI (Thomson Reuters)


Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Cemented Monolithic Zirconium Crown Using Different Types of Luting Agents: In vitro Comparative Study

Author(s):Basim Kareem Naser and Adel Farhan Ibrahim

Background/purpose: The longevity of fixed partial denture depends on the type of luting cement used with tooth preparation. This study was planned with an aim to evaluate fracture strength of monolithic zirconium crown by using different types of luting agents. Materials and methods: 32 sound maxillary first premolar teeth freshly extracted for orthodontic purposes were selected and collected to be used in this in vitro study. Teeth were divided into four groups: Group 1, control group (no cement), Group 2, GIC conventional (SDI), Group 3, TheraCem self-adhesive resin cement, Group 4, Duo-link universal adhesive. Standardized preparation for full contour zirconia crown restorations was carried out finishing lines depth 1.0 mm, total axial tapered of 6 degrees and axial height 4 mm. The teeth were then scanned directly. Full contour zirconia crown restorations were then fabricated. Deep chamfer finishing line was used in this study. Results: The study revealed that the least fracture resistance of monolithic zirconium crown Group 1 (2036.25 N), Group 2 (2272.50 N), Group 3 (2642.50 N), Group 4 (3318.75 N) respectively. Comparison of significance among the different groups using one-way ANOVA test showed statistically highly significant differences (p<0.01). Further, comparison between each group using Student’s t-test revealed the difference between G1 and G2 was statically non-significant while the difference between G1 and G3 and between G3 and G4 was statically significant. Furthermore, the difference between G1 and G4, also between G2 and G4 was highly significant. There was non-significance between GIC group and TheraCem® group, p>0.05. Conclusion: Duo-Link Universal™ adhesive was found to be more resistant to fracture strength followed by TheraCem® self-adhesive resin cement than GIC conventional (SDI) which is the least resistant luting agent.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

Scope Categories
  • Clinical Research
  • Epidemiology
  • Oncology
  • Biomedicine
  • Dentistry
  • Medical Education
  • Physiotherapy
  • Pulmonology
  • Nephrology
  • Gynaecology
  • Dermatology
  • Dermatoepidemiology
  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Ophthalmology
  • Sexology
  • Osteology
  • Kinesiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Haematology
  • Psychology
  • Paediatrics
  • Angiology/Vascular Medicine
  • Critical care Medicine
  • Cardiology
  • Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology
  • Hepatology
  • Geriatric Medicine
  • Bariatrics
  • Pharmacy and Nursing
  • Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
  • Radiobiology
  • Pharmacology
  • Toxicology
  • Clinical immunology
  • Clinical and Hospital Pharmacy
  • Cell Biology
  • Genomics and Proteomics
  • Pharmacogenomics
  • Bioinformatics and Biotechnology