A finite element analysis for a comparative evaluation of stress with two commonly used esthetic posts

Shetty, Prajna P; Meshramkar, Roseline; Patil, Konark; Nadiger, Ramesh K

doi:10.4103/1305-7456.120668

Cited by 19 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ANSYS was the FEM software used in this study (ANSYS Workbench 11, Canonsburg, PA, USA). The material properties are listed in Table 1 [20,[29][30][31][32]. The materials used in the models were assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic.…”

Section: Finite Element Methods (Fem)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Cervical Finish Lines of All-Ceramic Crowns on Primary Molars in Finite Element Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to conduct a stress analysis of four types of cervical finish lines in posterior all-ceramic crowns on the primary roots of molar teeth. Four different types of finish lines (shoulder 0.5 mm, feather-edged, chamfer 0.6 mm, and mini chamfer 0.4 mm) and two all-ceramic crown materials (zirconia and lithium disilicate) were used to construct eight finite element primary tooth models with full-coverage crowns. A load of 200 N was applied at two different loading angles (0 • and 15 • ) so as to mimic children's masticatory force and occlusal tendency. The maximum stress distribution from the three-dimensional finite element models was determined, and the main effect of each factor (loading type, material, and finish line types) was evaluated in terms of the stress values for all of the models. The results indicated that the loading type (90.25%) was the main factor influencing the maximum stress value of the primary root, and that the feather-edged margin showed the highest stress value (p = 0.002). In conclusion, shoulder and chamfer types of finish lines with a 0.4-0.6 mm thickness are recommended for deciduous tooth preparation, according to the biomechanical analysis.2 of 11 to both parents and children (because of their metallic appearance), time-consuming, and unprofitable. Resin-faced SSCs have emerged as a better alternative to metal SSCs, as they are more esthetic [10,11]. However, they are more prone to fracturing, debonding, and wearing of the buccal surface [12,13]. Pediatric all-ceramic crowns were introduced in 2010, and have gained popularity because of their improved esthetics and durability [12,[14][15][16]. These zirconia crowns are prefabricated [15] using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems [17]. Zirconia (ZrO 2 ), also known as ceramic steel, has favorable esthetics for primary teeth and has excellent mechanical properties, which include a high elastic modulus (215 Gigapascal (GPa)) and high flexure strength (1000 Megapascal (MPa)). Aiem et al. [18] found that zirconia crowns exhibited better gingival health and fewer crown fractures than the other ceramic crowns. Lithium disilicate (Li 2 Si 2 O 5 ) [19], a popular glass-ceramic material, was first used in 1998 and is named the Ivoclar Porcelain System (IPS) Empress 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, and Liechtenstein). IPS Empress 2 is a second-generation, heat-pressed lithium disilicate crystal embedded in a glassy matrix. Later, IPS e.max (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, and Liechtenstein) entered the market using the heat-pressed CAD/CAM fabrication method, with a flexural strength (biaxial) reaching 400 ± 40 MPa [20] and a Young's modulus of 95 ± 5 GPa [20]. Glass-ceramic is more transparent than zirconia and is easier to surface-etch for resin cement bonding. However, all-ceramic crowns cannot be manipulated with crimping or contouring, and may require a passive fit and extensive tooth reduction.Prefabricated primary zirconia crowns are thicker than SSCs, with occlusal thicknesses varying from 1 to 2 mm ...

show abstract

Section: Finite Element Methods (Fem)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Cervical Finish Lines of All-Ceramic Crowns on Primary Molars in Finite Element Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, posts “strengthen” teeth by increasing the resistance to fracture of the supra-ferrule-margin tooth/core/post complex from the abutment root, at the cross sectional interface located at the ferrule margin. However, posts can weaken an abutment root by putting forces on the root 2122829. If the amount of force that the post transmits routinely to the root exceeds the force that the root can withstand before beginning to fracture, then the post eventually will fracture the root.…”

Section: Do Posts Weaken Teeth?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Post and core build-ups in crown and bridge abutments: Bio-mechanical advantages and disadvantages

Mamoun¹

2017

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dentists often place post and core buildups on endodontically treated abutments for crown and bridge restorations. This article analyzes the bio-mechanical purposes, advantages and disadvantages of placing a core or a post and core in an endodontically treated tooth and reviews literature on post and core biomechanics. The author assesses the scientific rationale of the claim that the main purpose of a post is to retain a core, or the claim that posts weaken teeth. More likely, the main function of a post is to help prevent the abutment, on which a crown is cemented, from fracturing such that the abutment separates from the tooth root, at a fracture plane that is located approximately and theoretically at the level of the crown (or ferrule) margin. A post essentially improves the ferrule effect that is provided by the partial fixed denture prosthesis. This paper also explores the difference between bio-mechanical failures of crowns caused by lack of retention or excess taper, versus failures due to a sub-optimal ferrule effect in crown and bridge prostheses.

show abstract

“…Some studies [10,11] suggest that the supporting dowels (or posts) should have elastic moduli close to that of the natural tooth, which reduces the stress concentration and thus the rate of failure. As shown in Table 1, the elastic modulus of glass fiber (20 GPa) is very close to that of dentin (18.6 GPa).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of stress distribution in four different endodontic post systems in a model canine

Chen

Feng

Zhang

et al. 2015

BME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.To investigate the stress distribution in a maxillary canine restored with each of four different post systems at different levels of alveolar bone loss. Two-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) was performed by modeling a severely damaged canine with four different post systems: CAD/CAM zirconia, CAD/CAM glass fiber, cast titanium, and cast gold. A force of 100 N was applied to the crown, and the von Mises stresses were obtained. FEA revealed that the CAD/CAM zirconia post system produced the lowest maximum von Mises stress in the dentin layer at 115.8 MPa, while the CAD/CAM glass fiber post produced the highest stress in the dentin at 518.2 MPa. For a severely damaged anterior tooth, a zirconia post system is the best choice while a cast gold post ranks second. The CAD/CAM glass fiber post is least recommended in terms of stress level in the dentin.

show abstract

A finite element analysis for a comparative evaluation of stress with two commonly used esthetic posts

Cited by 19 publications

References 6 publications

Comparison of Different Cervical Finish Lines of All-Ceramic Crowns on Primary Molars in Finite Element Analysis

Comparison of Different Cervical Finish Lines of All-Ceramic Crowns on Primary Molars in Finite Element Analysis

Post and core build-ups in crown and bridge abutments: Bio-mechanical advantages and disadvantages

Finite element analysis of stress distribution in four different endodontic post systems in a model canine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About