FEA Comparison of the Mechanical Behavior of Three Dental Crown Materials: Enamel, Ceramic, and Zirconia

• Published in: Materials Vol. 17; no. 3; p. 673
• Main Authors: Ceddia, Mario, Lamberti, Luciano, Trentadue, Bartolomeo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 30.01.2024
• Subjects: Axial loads; Biomechanics; Ceramics; Comparative analysis; Crack propagation; Dental crowns; Dental enamel; Dental materials; Dentin; Dentistry; Finite element method; Load resistance; Mastication; Mechanical properties; Prostheses; Stresses; Teeth; Three dimensional models; Zirconium dioxide; Zirconium oxide; United States > US; dentin; finite element analysis; dental stress analysis; crown materials; prosthetic dentistry; crown
• DOI: 10.3390/ma17030673
• ISSN: 1996-1944

The restoration of endodontically treated teeth is one of the main challenges of restorative dentistry. The structure of the tooth is a complex assembly in which the materials that make it up, enamel and dentin, have very different mechanical behaviors. Therefore, finding alternative replacement materials for dental crowns in the area of restorative care isa highly significant challenge, since materials such as ceramic and zirconia have very different stress load resistance values. The aim of this study is to assess which material, either ceramic or zirconia, optimizes the behavior of a restored tooth under various typical clinical conditions and the masticatory load. A finite element analysis (FEA) framework is developed for this purpose. The 3D model of the restored tooth is input into the FEA software (Ansys Workbench R23)and meshed into tetrahedral elements. The presence of masticatory forces is considered: in particular, vertical, 45° inclined, and horizontal resultant forces of 280 N are applied on five contact points of the occlusal surface. The numerical results show that the maximum stress developed in the restored tooth including a ceramic crown and subject to axial load is about 39.381 MPa, which is rather close to the 62.32 MPa stress computed for the natural tooth; stresses of about 18 MPa are localized at the roots of both crown materials. In the case of the zirconia crown, the stresses are much higher than those in the ceramic crown, except for the 45° load direction, while, for the horizontal loads, the stress peak in the zirconia crown is almost three times as large as its counterpart in the ceramic crown (i.e., 163.24 MPa vs. 56.114 MPa, respectively). Therefore, the zirconia crown exhibits higher stresses than enamel and ceramic that could increase in the case of parafunctions, such as bruxism. The clinician’s choice between the two materials should be evaluated based on the patient’s medical condition.