Comparative Evaluation Of Commercially Available Stainless Steel Crowns: An In- Vitro Study

Updesh Masih

doi:10.21276/ujds.2021.7.3.27

Updesh Masih Sri Aurobindo College of dentistry, Indore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21276/ujds.2021.7.3.27

Keywords: stainless steel crown,tensile strength, compressive strength,

Abstract

Purpose : The purpuse of this study was to evaluate the tensile strength, compressive strength,adaptability,retention,resistance and dimensions of different commercially available stainless steel crown ( SSC ) and a new crown ( rainbow ) coming in the market.

Materials & method : Sixty extracted primary molars were used.Crown preparation was done.They were divided into four groups of 15 samples each. Each group was assigned a commercially available crown and group II was assigned the new rainbow crown. They were all subjected to universal mechanical testing machine.

Results : Group I has maximum value for tensile and compressive strength. The post hoc tukey analysis confirmed that there was no statistical difference between other variables for all the groups.

Conclusion : All the four brands of SSC had similar fracture resistance. Further study with big sample size is needed to evaluate their performance under cyclical and multiaxial force loads.

References

1. Pokorney RL. Stainless steel preformed crowns. Rev Dent Lib 1965; 15: 20-26.
2. Humphrey WP. Chrome alloy in children's dentistry. St. Louis Dent Soc 1950; 21: 15-16.
3.McEvoy SA. Approximating stainless steel crowns in space-loss quadrants. J Dent Child 1977; 44: 105-107.
4. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry reference manual 2007-2008. Pediatr Dent. 2007-2008;29(7 Suppl):1-271.
5. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 002;24(5):501-5.
6. Messer LB, Levering NJ. The durability of primary molar restorations: II. Observations and predictions of success of stainlesssteel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 1988;10(2):81-5.
7. Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatricdental practice. Br Dent J. 1990;169(8):237-44.
8. Seale NS (2002) The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 24: 501-505.
9. Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JW, Marcotte MR, Hönigle K, et al. (1996) A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod 66: 261-264.
10. Gaviao MB, Raymundo VG, Rentes AM. Masticatory performance and bite force in children with primary dentition. Braz Oral Res. 2007;21(2):146-52.
11. Sonnesen L, Bakke M. Molar bite force in relation to occlusion, craniofacial dimensions, and head posture in pre-orthodontic children. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(1):58-63.
12. Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25(6):582-4.
13. Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R, Tomsia AP, Marshall GW. A review of adhesion science. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e11-6.
14. Shirakura A, Lee H, Geminiani A, Ercoli C, Feng C. The influence of veneering porcelain thickness of all-ceramic and metal ceramic crowns on failure resistance after cyclic loading. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101(2):119-27.