Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

To Evaluate and Compare the Effect of Proximal Wall Height on Stress Distribution at Occlusal Surface of Tooth and Prosthesis Core in Porcelain Fused to Metal and Veneered Zirconia Crowns: A FEA Study

Greesham Sharma, Manjit Kumar, Tarun Kalra, Ajay Bansal, Abhishek Avasthi, Ritika Sharda

Keywords : Finite element analysis, Mandibular molar, PFM, Stress distribution, Veneered zirconia

Citation Information : Sharma G, Kumar M, Kalra T, Bansal A, Avasthi A, Sharda R. To Evaluate and Compare the Effect of Proximal Wall Height on Stress Distribution at Occlusal Surface of Tooth and Prosthesis Core in Porcelain Fused to Metal and Veneered Zirconia Crowns: A FEA Study. 2024; 12 (3):130-136.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0056

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 31-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: This study was undertaken to evaluate and compare stress distribution on tooth surface and core surface in porcelain fused to metal crown and veneered zirconia crown as a function of ratio of buccal axial length (BAL) to proximal axial length (PAL) with variations in loading condition and position using finite element analysis. Materials and methods: The geometric models of the prepared mandibular first molar and prosthesis were generated. Total six models were generated in accordance with the needs of the study. Three models were generated for veneered zirconia and three for veneered porcelain fused to metal. The proximal wall height variations used in the study were 3.0, 3.2, and 3.4 mm. Combined forces of 200 N vertical and 100 N horizontal were applied to the central groove, mesial incline and cusp center over a 1 mm diameter surface area on the veneer layer. Results: The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 39.691 MPa at the cusp center of the tooth with a veneered zirconia crown at proximal wall height of 3.0 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 34.916 MPa at the cusp center of a tooth with porcelain fused to a metal crown at proximal wall height of 3.0 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 34.214 MPa at the cusp center of the tooth with a veneered zirconia crown at a proximal wall height of 3.2 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 28.365 MPa at the cusp center of a tooth with porcelain fused to a metal crown at a proximal wall height of 3.2 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 29.729 MPa at the cusp center of the tooth with a veneered zirconia crown at a proximal wall height of 3.4 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 27.25 MPa at the cusp center of a tooth with porcelain fused to a metal crown at a proximal wall height of 3.4 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 59 MPa at the cusp center of zirconia coping with a veneered zirconia crown at a proximal wall height of 3.0 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 48.619 MPa at the cusp center of metal coping with porcelain fused to a metal crown at a proximal wall height of 3.0 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 57.516 MPa at the cusp center of zirconia coping with a veneered zirconia crown at a proximal wall height of 3.2 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 37.423 MPa at the cusp center of metal coping with porcelain fused to metal crown at proximal wall height of 3.2 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 54.694 MPa at the cusp center of zirconia coping with a veneered zirconia crown at a proximal wall height of 3.4 mm. The maximum von Mises stress value was observed to be 36.105 MPa at the cusp center of the metal coping with porcelain fused to the metal crown at a proximal wall height of 3.4 mm. Conclusion: Maximum stresses were seen at the proximal wall height of 3.0 mm at the occlusal surface of the tooth in the veneered zirconia crown as compared to the proximal wall heights of 3.2 and 3.4 mm. Maximum stresses were seen at the proximal wall height of 3.0 mm at the occlusal surface of the zirconia coping in the veneered zirconia crown, as compared to the proximal wall heights of 3.2 and 3.4 mm. Maximum stresses were seen at the proximal wall height of 3.0 mm at the occlusal surface of a tooth in porcelain fused to a metal crown as compared to the proximal wall heights of 3.2 and 3.4 mm. Maximum stresses were seen at the proximal wall height of 3.0 mm at the occlusal surface of metal coping in porcelain fused to metal crown as compared to the proximal wall heights of 3.2 and 3.4 mm. When the proximal wall heights were compared maximum von Mises stresses were observed at the occlusal surface of the tooth with veneered zirconia crown as compared to the porcelain fused to metal prosthesis. When the proximal wall heights were compared maximum von Mises stresses were observed at the occlusal surface of zirconia coping in veneered zirconia crown as compared to the porcelain fused to metal prosthesis. The stresses increased as the proximal wall height was reduced. The maximum von Mises stresses were found at the cusp center, followed by mesial incline and central groove at all the variable proximal wall heights.


PDF Share
  1. Singh M, Kumar L, Anwar M, et al. Immediate dental implant placement with immediate loading following extraction of natural teeth. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2015;6(2):252–255. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.183864.
  2. Syed AUY, Rokaya D, Shahrbaf S, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution in a tooth restored with full coverage machined polymer crown. Appl Sci 2021:11(3). DOI: 10.3390/app11031220.
  3. Paulo GC, Silva NR, Thompson VP, et al. Effect of proximal wall height on all-ceramic crown core stress distribution: A finite element analysis study. In J Prosthodont 2009;22(1):78–86. PMID: 19260434.
  4. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Langot C. Three dimensional finite element analysis of molars with thin-walled prosthetic crowns made of various materials. Dent Mater 2012;28(4):433–441. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.019.
  5. Malament KA. Prosthodontics: Achieving quality esthetics dentistry and integrated comprehensive care. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131(12):1742–1749. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0121.
  6. De Jager N, de Kler M, van der Zel JM. The influence of different core material on the FEA-determined stress distribution in dental crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22(3):234–242. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.034.
  7. Campos RE, Soares CJ, Quagliatto PS, et al. In vitro study of fracture load and fracture pattern of ceramic crowns: A finite element and fractography analysis. J Prosthodont 2011;20(6):447–455. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00744.x.
  8. D'souza KM, Aras MA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution pattern in a mandibular first molar tooth restored with five different restorative materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(1):53–60. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.197938.
  9. Silva NRFA, Bonfante E, Rafferty BT, et al. Conventional and modified veneered zirconia vs. metalloceramic: Fatigue and finite element analysis. J Prosthodont 2012;21(6):433–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00861.x.
  10. Donovon TE. Porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) alternatives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21(1):4–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00222.x.
  11. Napankangas R, Raustia A. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21(4):307–311. PMID: 18717088.
  12. Imanishi A, Nakamura T, Ohyama T. 3-D Finite element analysis of all-ceramic posterior crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(8):818–822. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01123.x.
  13. Geminiani A, Lee H, Feng C, et al. The influence of incisal veneering porcelain thickness of two metal ceramic crown systems on failure resistance after cyclic loading. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(5):275–282. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60058-3.
  14. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary all ceramic fixed partial dentures: A review. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):531–544. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2003.12.008.
  15. Giordano RA, Pelletier L, Campbell S, et al. Flexural strength of an infused ceramic, glass ceramic, and feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(5):411–418. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80067-8.
  16. Ha SR, Kim SH, Han JS, et al. The influence of various core designs on stress distribution in the veneered zirconia crown: A finite element analysis study. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5(2):187–197. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.187.
  17. Alsarani M, De Souza G, Rizkalla A, et al. Influence of crown design and material on chipping-resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns: An in vitro study. Dent Med Probl 2018;55(1):35–42. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/85000.
  18. Rekow ED, Harsono M, Janal M, et al. Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22(2): 125–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.010.
  19. Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Zavanelli RA, et al. Reliability of metalloceramic and zirconia-based ceramic crowns. J Dent Res 2010;89(10):1051–1056. DOI: 10.1177/0022034510375826.
  20. Anusavice KJ, Hojjatie B. Influence of incisal length of ceramic and loading orientation on stress distribution in ceramic crowns. J Dent Res 1988;67(11):1371–1375. DOI: 10.1177/00220345880670110201.
  21. Moris ICM, Moscardini CA, Moura LKB, et al. Evaluation of stress distribution in endodontically weakened teeth restored with different crown materials: 3D- FEA Analysis. Braz Dent J 2017;28(6):715–719. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201701829.
  22. Scherrer SS, de Rijik WG. The effect of crown length on the fracture resistance of posterior porcelain and glass-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5(6):550–557. PMID: 1307015.
  23. Maghami E, Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, et al. Effect of preparation design for all-ceramic restoration on maxillary premolar: A 3D finite element study. J Prosthodont Res 2018:62(4):436–442. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.04.002.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.