Comparison of the Load at Fracture of Turkom‐Cera to Procera AllCeram and In‐Ceram All‐Ceramic Restorations

Abstract

Because Turkom-Cera demonstrated equal to or higher loads at fracture than currently accepted all-ceramic materials, it would seem to be acceptable for fabrication of anterior and posterior ceramic crowns.

Strength of a New All-Ceramic Restorative Material “Turkom-Cera” Compared to Two Other Alumina-Based All-Ceramic Systems

“…The results of this study for Turkom-Cera and In-Ceram copings were in agreement with those obtained in a previous study (AL-Makramani et al, 2009), which found that TurkomCera had a significantly higher load at fracture than Procera AllCeram. Furthermore, the results of this study for In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram copings were in agreement with those obtained in previous studies (Webber et al, 2003;Neiva et al, 1998;Harrington et al, 2003;AL-Makramani et al, 2009), which found no significant differences in load at fracture between Procera AllCeram and In-Ceram copings that were resin cemented.…”

“…The results of this study for Turkom-Cera and In-Ceram copings were in agreement with those obtained in a previous study (AL-Makramani et al, 2009), which found that TurkomCera had a significantly higher load at fracture than Procera AllCeram. Furthermore, the results of this study for In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram copings were in agreement with those obtained in previous studies (Webber et al, 2003;Neiva et al, 1998;Harrington et al, 2003;AL-Makramani et al, 2009), which found no significant differences in load at fracture between Procera AllCeram and In-Ceram copings that were resin cemented. An in vitro study (AL-Makramani et al, 2009), which evaluated the fracture resistance of Turkom-Cera, In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram copings cemented on a metal master die using resin luting cement, shows that the load necessary to fracture the Turkom-Cera, InCeram and Procera AllCeram copings in the current study was less than that reported in that study.…”

“…In the present study, the ceramic copings were cemented to natural teeth to replicate fracture load results more related to clinical situations than using ceramic discs (Wakabayashi and Anusavice, 2000;Ku et al, 2002) or crowns cemented to resin or metal die replicas (Neiva et al, 1998;AL-Makramani et al, 2009). Die replicas made of steel or resin fail to reproduce the actual force distribution at the inner surface of the crown or to reliably produce the characteristics of bonding between crowns and prepared teeth (Kelly, 1999;AL-Makramani et al, 2008a).…”

Fracture resistance of zirconia-composite veneered crowns in comparison with zirconia-porcelain crowns

“…using a ball or a bar to apply load 5) or the type of the underlying abutment 46) . Consequently there is a variation in results between different investigations 47) . Further variables with this testing result from the design and reproducibility of samples.…”

Influence of the supporting die structures on the fracture strength of all-ceramic materials

“…Resin bonding of ceramic restorations to the supporting tooth structure increases the fracture resistance of the restored tooth and the restoration itself [9,17,18]. Many studies have evaluated the fracture strength of allceramic crowns [4,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] using metal [4,21,23,25], brass [19,26], acrylic resin [20], epoxy resin [24,27], and dentin [22] as supporting die materials. Increasing the elastic modulus of the supporting die material has been suggested as a means to increase the fracture resistance of all-ceramic posterior crowns [11].…”