Effect of mastication simulation on the phase transformation of posterior 3-unit monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses

Abstract

Statement of problemMonolithic zirconia restorations are directly exposed to cyclic loads and temperature changes in the oral cavity after cementation. These stresses may reduce the long-term success of the material by causing uncontrolled phase transformations within the zirconia. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of mastication simulation and different measurement points on the phase transformation of posterior 3-unit monolithic zirconia partial fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in the posterior region. Material and methodsPosterior 3-unit FDPs of monolithic yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (Y-TZP), including BruxZir Shaded (group B), FireZr (group F), and Upcera (group U) (n=10), were machined from presintered blocks. All specimens were exposed to mastication simulation (240 000 cycles/1.7 Hz/50 N). The monoclinic phase content was evaluated by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Phase transformation was measured at the mesial connector (group M), distal connector (group D), and pontic regions (group P) before and after mastication simulation. The relative monoclinic phase amount (Xm) was calculated for all specimens. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and post hoc tests (α=.05). ResultsAccording to XRD analysis, Xm for all groups and regions showed higher results after aging than before aging (P<.05). Group B has the lowest Xm among the groups. Group B showed a statistically significant difference compared with both group F and group U (P<.05). There was no significant difference between group F and group U (P>.05). When the regions were evaluated regardless of brand and the groups were evaluated in terms of regions, no statistically significant difference was observed between connectors and the pontic region (P>.05). ConclusionsMastication simulation causes an increase in the Xm. However, this increase was unlikely to be clinically significant. There may be differences in phase transformation depending on the contents of the brands and sintering procedures. Variations in the phase quantity were independent of the connector regions and pontic for FDPs.