Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
ISSN 1829-006X
2025; 142–153
Shared with The Gufo

MORPHOFUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF THE ORAL MUCOSA AND ITS REGENERATIVE POTENTIAL IN THE AGE ASPECT

Denis Moiseev*, Tsagaraev, Igor Kopetsky, Ekaterina Mikhailova, Maxim Stavitsky, Gegham Stepanyan, Olga Guseva, Yuriy Vasil’ev, Natalia Gontar

Head of the Laboratory of Simulation Technologies in Dentistry, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Senior Laboratory Assistant at the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia e · Head of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, Director of the Institute of Dentistry, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, 1Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Institute of Dentistry, 1Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Institute of Dentistry, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, 1Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia · Department of Operative Surgery and Topographic Anatomy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia · Institute of Dentistry, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov University), Moscow, Russia

Received: 2026-04-08 · Published: 2025-06-18

© 2025 The Author(s) and the original publisher.

CC BY-NC 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Shared article.
Original title
MORPHOFUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF THE ORAL MUCOSA AND ITS REGENERATIVE POTENTIAL IN THE AGE ASPECT
Authors
Denis Moiseev, Tsagaraev, Igor Kopetsky, Ekaterina Mikhailova, Maxim Stavitsky, Gegham Stepanyan, Olga Guseva, Yuriy Vasil’ev, Natalia Gontar
Source journal
Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2025-06-18
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Original
https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2025.21.5-142

Abstract

Background:Because they are considered biocompatible, tough and look great, zirconia crowns are commonly used instead of metal-ceramic restorations. The advantage of monolithic zirconia is that it does not include a veneer which can easily chip in bilayered restorations. Cementation technique can affect the toughness of the material. The purpose of this study was to compare between the fracture strength of monolithic and bilayered zirconia crowns cemented with either resin or glass ionomer cements. Methods and Materials:Sixteen monolithic zirconia crowns and Sixteen bilayered zirconia crowns were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and formed two groups called Group A and Group B. Each group was split into two new subgroups (eight each) dependent on the type of used cement, naming the subgroups with AR and BR groups for the adhesive resin cement and AG and BG groups for the glass ionomer cement. All crowns were prepared by air-abrasion and cemented onto epoxy resin dies, after which they were thermocycled (5,000 times, from 5°C to 55°C). Strength at fracture was determined on a universal testing machine and the types of fracture failure were explored using a scanning electron microscope. Results:The fracture strength was much higher in monolithic zirconia crowns than in bilayered crowns, no matter the cement used. The average fracture strength was 2541 ± 349 N for AR, 2578 ± 339 N for AG, 1557 ± 418 N for BR and 1691 ± 526 N for BG. There were no major differences between adhesive and conventional cements used in crowns of the same type (p > 0.05). Even so, there were significant differences (p < 0.001) between crowns made from solid material and those made from two layers. Analysis of failures showed that monolithic crowns suffered major fractures, but the layer-separation problem arises with bilayered crowns. Conclusion:The fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns exceeded that of bilayered zirconia crowns, with this advantage noticeable regardless of the cementation method. Both adhesive resin and glass ionomer cements worked well clinically. For posterior restorations that are best suited to strong crowns, monolithic zirconia may be recommended.
1 / ? 100% Open in new tab Download Cite

Loading the full text…

Download Follow Updates