Comparison of Fracture Resistance for Chairside CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns and Overlays with Different Designs

Effects of ceramic thickness, ceramic translucency, and light transmission on light-cured bulk-fill resin composites as luting cement of lithium disilicate based-ceramics

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of ceramic thickness, ceramic translucency, and light transmission on restorative composites used as luting cement for lithium disilicate-based ceramics.

METHODS

Four luting types of cement were tested (n=8); a dual-cured resin cement (Multilink N), a light-cured conventional flowable composite (Tetric N-Flow), and two light-cured bulk-fill flowable composites (Tetric N-Flow Bulk Fill and X-tra base). The 20 s- or 40 s-light (1000 mW/cm2) was transmitted through 1- or 2-mm-thick high- or low-translucency (HT- or LT-) ceramic discs (IPS e.Max press) to reach the 1-mm-thick luting cement. Light transmitted to cement without ceramic served as a control. Vickers hardness number (VHN), flexural strength (FS), fractography, and degree of conversion (DC) were evaluated. One-way and multi-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine the effects of factors on VHN and FS.

RESULTS

Ceramic thickness, light transmission time, and cement type significantly affected the VHN of the luting cement (P < .000). Only Multilink N (LT- and HT-1mm) and Tetric N-Flow (HT-1mm) reached 90% VHN of corresponding control by 20 s-light transmissions, but Tetric N-Flow exhibited lowest VHN and approximately 1/3-1/2 VHN of Multilink N (P < 0.05). X-tra base expressed superior physicochemical properties to Tetric N-Flow Bulk Fill (P < 0.05) and reached >90% VHN of control in all conditions with 40 s-light transmissions except for LT-2 mm. DC, FS, and fractography supported these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The light-cured bulk-fill composite served as a luting cement for lithium-disilicate-based ceramics in a product-dependent manner. Light transmission time is crucial to ensure sufficient luting cement polymerization.

Do onlays and crowns offer similar outcomes to posterior teeth with mesial-occlusal-distal preparations? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Teeth prepared for mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) restorations have a significant risk of cusp fracture. Crowns and onlays can provide cusp coverage to reinforce posterior teeth at risk. Onlays are often more conservative of tooth structure which may be an advantage for teeth with large MOD preparations. It remains uncertain how onlays and crowns compare for posterior teeth with MOD tooth structure loss. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the resistance to fracture, success rate, survival rate, and failure rate of teeth with MOD preparations restored with onlays or crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search queried Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature (OpenGrey) from database inception through April 29, 2023.

RESULTS

After eliminating duplicates and irrelevant records, 32 manuscripts were assessed. Only three publications met the criteria for inclusion. Most exclusions were due to poor reporting of restorative design and the amount of tooth structure remaining, or due to combining various restorative designs. Due to the limited sample size and high heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was conducted. One study observed a better outcome for onlays and two observed no difference. All three studies reported the mode of failure for crowns as more catastrophic whereas teeth with onlays could be salvaged.

CONCLUSIONS

Onlays may be an advantageous alternative to crowns for teeth with MOD preparations, but the level of evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether onlays or crowns are providing a different outcome when used to restore posterior teeth with MOD tooth structure loss. However, the fracture of teeth with MOD tooth structure loss restored with onlays appears to be less catastrophic than when restored with crowns.

Minimally invasive CAD/CAM lithium disilicate partial-coverage restorations show superior in-vitro fatigue performance than single crowns

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the influence of restoration design (partial-coverage restoration vs. crown) and ceramic layer thickness on the performance and failure loads of CAD/CAM-fabricated lithium disilicate (LDS) reconstructions on molars after fatigue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-two posterior monolithic CAD/CAM-fabricated LDS restorations (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) with different occlusal/buccal ceramic layer thicknesses (1.5/0.8, 1.0/0.6, and 0.5/0.4 mm) and restoration designs (PCR: non-retentive full-veneer/partial-coverage restoration, C: crown,) were investigated and divided into six groups (n = 12, test: PCR-1.5, PCR-1.0, PCR-0.5; control: C-1.5, C-1.0, C-0.5). LDS restorations were adhesively bonded (Variolink Esthetic DC, Ivoclar Vivadent) to dentin-analogue composite dies (Z100, 3M ESPE). All specimens were subjected to thermomechanical loading (1.2 million cycles, 49 N, 1.6 Hz, 5-55°C) and exposed to single load to failure testing. Failure analysis was performed with light and scanning electron microscopies. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey-Test, and t-test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Eight crown samples (C-0.5) and one PCR specimen (PCR-0.5) revealed cracks after fatigue, resulting in an overall success rate of 87.5% (crowns: 75%, PCRs: 96.88%). Direct comparisons of PCRs versus crowns for thicknesses of 0.5 mm (p < 0.001) and 1.0 mm (p = 0.004) were significant and in favor of PCRs. Minimally invasive PCRs (0.5 and 1.0 mm) outperformed crowns with the identical ceramic thickness. No difference was detected (p = 0.276) between thickness 1.5 mm PCRs and crowns.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive monolithic CAD/CAM-fabricated posterior LDS PCRs (0.5 and 1.0 mm) resulted in superior failure load values compared to minimally invasive crowns. Minimally invasive crowns (0.5 mm) are prone to cracks after fatigue.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Minimally invasive CAD/CAM-fabricated LDS PCR restorations with a non-retentive preparation design should be considered over single crowns for molar rehabilitation.

Post-Fatigue Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate and Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic Network Indirect Restorations over Endodontically-Treated Molars with Different Preparation Designs: An In-Vitro Study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fatigue to cyclic and static resistance of indirect restorations with different preparation designs made either of lithium disilicate (LS) or polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN). Eighty-four (n = 84) molars were chosen, endodontically treated, and prepared with standardized MOD cavities. The molars were randomly divided into 6 study groups (n = 14) taking into account the "preparation design'' (occlusal veneer with 1.2 mm occlusal thickness; overlay with 1.6 mm occlusal thickness; adhesive crown with 2 mm occlusal thickness) and the "CAD/CAM material'' (E-max CAD, Ivoclar vivadent; Vita Enamic, Vita). A fatigue test was conducted with a chewing simulator set at 50 N for 1,500,000 cycles. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine with a 6 mm diameter steel sphere applied to the specimens at a constant speed of 1 mm/min. A SEM analysis before the fracture test was performed to visually analyze the tooth-restoration margins. A statistical analysis was performed with a two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey test. The two-way ANOVA test showed that both the preparation design factor (p = 0.0429) and the CAD/CAM material factor (p = 0.0002) had a significant influence on the fracture resistance of the adhesive indirect restorations. The interaction between the two variables did not show any significance (p = 0.8218). The occlusal veneer had a lower fracture resistance than the adhesive crown (p = 0.042) but not lower than the overlay preparation (p = 0.095). LS was more resistant than PICN (p = 0.002). In conclusion, in the case of endodontically treated teeth, overlay preparation seems to be a valid alternative to the traditional full crown preparation, while occlusal veneers should be avoided in restoring non-vital molars with a high loss of residual tooth structure. LS material is more resistant compared to PICN.

Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two ceramic and two composite polishing systems for a novel chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic with three-dimensional and two-dimensional microscopy images. This ceramic material can be used for implant-supported or tooth-borne single-unit prostheses. Materials and Methods: Sixty flat samples of novel chairside CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) were divided into five groups (n = 15/group) and treated as follows: Group 1 (NoP), no polished treatment; group 2 (CeDi), polished with ceramic Dialite LD (Brasseler USA); group 3, (CeOp) polished with ceramic OptraFine (Ivoclar Vivadent); group 4, (CoDi) polished with composite DiaComp (Brasseler USA), and group 5 (CoAs), polished with composite Astropol (Ivoclar Vivadent). The polished ceramic surface topography was observed and measured with three-dimensional and two-dimensional images. Results: All polishing systems significantly reduced the surface roughness compared with the non-polished control group (Sa 1.15 μm). Group 2 (CeDi) provided the smoothest surface arithmetical mean eight with 0.32 μm, followed by group 3 (CeOp) with 0.34 μm. Group 5 (CoAs) with 0.52 μm provided the smoothest surface among the composite polishing kits. Group 4 (CoDi) with 0.66 μm provided the least smooth surface among all polishing systems tested. Conclusions: Despite the effectiveness of ceramic polishing systems being superior to composite polishing systems of the CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorative material, both polishing systems significantly improved the smoothness.

Shear bond strength of ceramic laminate veneers to finishing surfaces with different percentages of preserved enamel under a digital guided method

Background

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of the percentages of preserved enamel on ceramic laminate veneers’ (CLVs) shear bond strength (SBS).

Methods

Seventy extracted human maxillary central incisors were scanned and reconstructed into three-dimensional models. The extracted teeth were then embedded and randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10 per group). Based on digital analyses of the three-dimensional models, guided tooth preparation and bonding procedures were performed individually to form seven different percentages (100%, 80%, 60% 50%, 40%, 20% and 0%) of remaining enamel thickness on the bonding surface. Finally, the SBS test was performed, and the data were statistically analysed by one-way ANOVA with LSD post hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results

The complete enamel surface exhibited the highest SBS (19.93 ± 4.55 MPa), followed by 80% enamel (19.03 ± 3.66 MPa), 60% enamel (18.44 ± 3.65 MPa), 50% enamel (18.18 ± 3.41 MPa), 40% enamel (17.83 ± 3.01 MPa) and 20% enamel (11.32 ± 3.42 MPa) group. The lowest SBS (9.63 ± 3.46 MPa) was detected in 0% enamel group. No significant difference was observed among the 40–100% enamel groups, while the 20% or 0% enamel group demonstrated a significantly lower mean SBS than the 40% enamel group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The SBS value of CLVs bonded to 100% enamel on the finishing surfaces (nearly 20 MPa) was twice that which bonded to 0% enamel (nearly 10 MPa). Bonding to 100% enamel is the most reliable treatment. When dentin exposure is inevitable, enamel should be preserved as much as possible to maintain good bonding. In addition, 40% of preserved enamel on the bonding surface was the minimal acceptable value to fulfil the requirements of good bonding strength.