Thermal/mechanical simulation and laboratory fatigue testing of an alternative yttria tetragonal zirconia polycrystal core-veneer all-ceramic layered crown design

This study evaluated the stress levels at the core layer and the veneer layer of zirconia crowns (comprising an alternative core design vs. a standard core design) under mechanical/thermal simulation, and subjected simulated models to laboratory mouth-motion fatigue. The dimensions of a mandibular first molar were imported into computer-aided design (CAD) software and a tooth preparation was modeled. A crown was designed using the space between the original tooth and the prepared tooth. The alternative core presented an additional lingual shoulder that lowered the veneer bulk of the cusps. Finite element analyses evaluated the residual maximum principal stresses fields at the core and veneer of both designs under loading and when cooled from 900 degrees C to 25 degrees C. Crowns were fabricated and mouth-motion fatigued, generating master Weibull curves and reliability data. Thermal modeling showed low residual stress fields throughout the bulk of the cusps for both groups. Mechanical simulation depicted a shift in stress levels to the core of the alternative design compared with the standard design. Significantly higher reliability was found for the alternative core. Regardless of the alternative configuration, thermal and mechanical computer simulations showed stress in the alternative core design comparable and higher to that of the standard configuration, respectively. Such a mechanical scenario probably led to the higher reliability of the alternative design under fatigue.

Step size control for efficient discrete element simulation

The step size determines the accuracy of a discrete element simulation. The position and velocity updating calculation uses a pre-calculated table and hence the control of step size can not use the integration formulas for step size control. A step size control scheme for use with the table driven velocity and position calculation uses the difference between the calculation result from one big step and that from two small steps. This variable time step size method chooses the suitable time step size for each particle at each step automatically according to the conditions. Simulation using fixed time step method is compared with that of using variable time step method. The difference in computation time for the same accuracy using a variable step size (compared to the fixed step) depends on the particular problem. For a simple test case the times are roughly similar. However, the variable step size gives the required accuracy on the first run. A fixed step size may require several runs to check the simulation accuracy or a conservative step size that results in longer run times. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.