Related Experiment Videos
A compressive strength study of complete ceramic crowns. Part II.
B A Josephson1, A Schulman, Z A Dunn
1Department of Removable Prosthodontics, New York University, David B. Kriser Dental Center, New York, N.Y.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
|March 1, 1991
Summary
New dental porcelains, Dicor and Renaissance, show questionable strength for routine posterior crown use. Their crushing strength is lower than porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, raising concerns for durability.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Biomaterials Engineering
- Prosthodontics
Background:
- Previous research established the crushing strength of Cerestore crowns relative to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and porcelain jacket crowns.
- Advancements in dental ceramics have introduced new materials like Dicor and Renaissance porcelains.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the crushing strength of Cerestore, Dicor, and Renaissance all-porcelain crowns.
- To evaluate these new porcelains against established PFM crowns (maximum strength standard) and all-porcelain crowns (minimum strength standard).
Main Methods:
- Replication of the methodologies employed in the original comparative study.
- Comparative crushing strength analysis of Cerestore, Dicor, and Renaissance crowns.
- Utilized PFM crowns as a benchmark for maximum available strength and a basic all-porcelain crown for minimum strength.
Main Results:
- The new Dicor and Renaissance porcelains exhibited crushing strengths that raise concerns for their suitability.
- These materials may not be robust enough for consistent application in all posterior crown scenarios.
Conclusions:
- The demonstrated strength of Dicor and Renaissance porcelains suggests they are questionable for routine posterior crown fabrication.
- Further evaluation is warranted before widespread clinical adoption for posterior restorations.