Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of posterior primary zirconia crowns
- 49 Downloads
To compare the surface roughness of four commercially available posterior zirconia crowns on the occlusal surface and occlusal edge (buccal cusps) of first and second primary molars crowns.
Surface roughness of 40 posterior primary zirconia crowns was measured using a mechanical stylus profilometer. Ten mandibular right molar crowns, consisting of five first primary molar and five second primary molar crowns from four brands—Cheng, Sprig EZCrowns, NuSmile and Kinder Krowns were selected. Mean roughness, Ra and mean roughness depth, Rz was measured for all crowns on two selected surfaces, occlusal surface and buccal cusp tips. Data was evaluated by one way analysis of variance and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test at 0.05 level of significance.
Statistically significant differences were observed in the mean Ra and Rz values at both selected surfaces among four prefabricated paedodontic zirconia crowns. Kinder Krowns had higher Ra and Rz values compared to Cheng, Sprig EZCrowns and NuSmile. Roughness profile of Kinder Krowns also showed higher vertical scale values co-relating with higher Ra and Rz scores, irrespective of the measurements taken on relatively flat surfaces (occlusal edge) or deeper surface (occlusal pits and fissures).
Mechanically polished posterior primary zirconia crowns had a smoother surface profile than the combined polished-glazed primary zirconia crowns. Cheng Crowns had the lowest mean Ra and Rz values although not statistically significant from Sprig EZCrowns and Nu Smile. Kinder Krowns had the highest mean Ra and Rz scores than other crown groups.
KeywordsSurface roughness Zirconia crowns Primary tooth wear Paediatric dentistry
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
T. Walia declares that he has no conflict of interest. C. Brigi declares that she has no conflict of interest. Abdel Rahman M. M. KhirAllah declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was not required as the study neither involved human subjects or teeth.
- Holsinger DM, Wells MH, Scarbecz M, et al. Clinical evaluation and parental satisfaction with pediatric zirconia anterior crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38(3):192–7.Google Scholar
- Johnson-Harris D, Chiquet B, Flaitz C, et al. Wear of primary tooth enamel by ceramic materials. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38(7):519–22.Google Scholar
- Nelson GV, Osborne JW, Gale EN, et al. A three-year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 1980;47(6):414–8.Google Scholar
- Theriot AL, Frey GN, Ontiveros JC, et al. Gloss and surface roughness of anterior pediatric zirconia crowns. J Dent Child. 2017;84(3):115–9.Google Scholar
- Walia T, Bashiri R, Alaghband F. Split mouth clinical study evaluating stainless steel crowns and primary zirconia crowns in pulp treated primary molars. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2015;25(S1):26.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, et al. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31(1):63–7.Google Scholar