Fracture strength of zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations following endodontic access

Effect of preparation design and endodontic access on fracture resistance of zirconia overlays in mandibular molars: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the fracture resistance of zirconia overlays, considering various preparation designs and the presence of endodontic access.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety translucent zirconia (5Y-PSZ) overlay restorations were divided into six groups (n = 15/group) based on different preparation designs, with and without endodontic access: chamfer margin 4 mm above the gingival level without (group 1) and with endodontic access (group 2); margin 2 mm above the gingival level without (group 3) and with endodontic access (group 4); overlay with no chamfer margin without (group 5) and with endodontic access (group 6). Restorations were bonded to mandibular first molar resin dies, and the groups with endodontic access were sealed with flowable resin composite. All restorations underwent 100,000 cycles of thermal cycling between 5°C and 55°C, followed by loading until fracture. Maximum load and fracture resistance were recorded. ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests were used for statistical comparison (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

Fracture resistance significantly varied among overlay designs with and without endodontic access (p < 0.001), except for the no-margin overlays (groups 5 and 6). Overlays with a 2 mm margin above the gingival margin with endodontic access (group 4) exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance compared to both the 4-mm supragingival (group 2) and no-margin (group 6) designs, even when compared to their respective intact groups (groups 1 and 5). There were no significant differences between the no-margin and 4-mm supragingival overlays.

CONCLUSION

The more extensive zirconia overlay for mandibular molars is the first choice since the 2 mm margin above the gingival level design withstood considerable loads even after undergoing endodontic access. A no-margin overlay is preferred over the 4-mm supragingival design as it preserves more tooth structure and there was no outcome difference, irrespective of endodontic access. Caution is warranted in interpreting these findings due to the in vitro nature of the study.

Fracture resistance of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate occlusal veneer with various designs after mechanical aging

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate crown, onlay, and non-anatomical occlusal veneer (A-OV) with and without margin fabricated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-four CAD-CAM lithium disilicate restorations were designed as (1) complete coverage crown (CCC); (2) A-OV with margin; (3) non-A-OV with margin (NA-OV-M); and (4) non-A-OV without margin (NA-OV-NM), 16 of each. Restorations were crystallized and adhesively luted to resin dies using resin cement. Specimens were then subjected to 400,000 cycles of chewing in a mastication simulator. A universal testing machine was used to apply a compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min to the long axis of the tooth with a stainless-steel sphere until fracture occurred. One-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests were used to assess the impact of preparation design on the fracture load of CAD-CAM lithium disilicate restorations.

RESULTS

The highest fracture load was recorded for CAD-CAM lithium disilicate indirect restorations for non-A-OVs preparation with margin (2549 ± 428 N) and onlay (2549 ± 293 N) and the lowest fracture load was recorded for CCCs (2389 ± 428 N); however, there was no significant (p = 0.640) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAD-CAM lithium disilicate restorations fabricated for anatomical and non-A-OV preparation display a fracture resistance similar to CCCs. Conservative partial coverage restorations may be considered an acceptable approach for posterior teeth.

Fracture Resistance of Chairside CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate-reinforced Ceramic Occlusal Veneers With and Without Margin and Full Coverage Crowns

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this investigation was to compare the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic occlusal veneers with and without margin and traditional full coverage premolar crowns.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 60 chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) restorations were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were divided into three groups (n=20): 1) occlusal veneer with 1.0-mm uniform occlusal thickness and with chamfer margin; 2) occlusal veneer with 1.0-mm uniform occlusal thickness and without margin; and 3) full coverage crown with uniform occlusal thickness and gingival margin. Occlusal veneers and crowns were cemented with dual cured resin luting cement (Multilink, Ivoclar Vivadent) to printed resin dies, load cycled (5 million load cycles at 1 Hz with 275 N force), and then loaded until fracture. Load at break (LB) and peak load (PL) until fracture were recorded. Scanning electron microscope images of the tested restorations on the abutments were obtained.

RESULTS

Fracture strengths were different depending on the design of the restoration. There was no significant difference in fracture strength between the two types of occlusal veneer (LB: 1132.45 N; PL: 1143.30 N for veneers with margin; LB: 1149.25 N; PL: 1219.05 N for veneers without margin). Full coverage crowns showed the lowest fracture resistance (LB: 936.26 N, PL: 976.42 N), which was significantly lower than both designs of occlusal veneer.

CONCLUSIONS

The fracture resistance of the CAD/CAM lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic restorations was influenced by the design. Occlusal veneers with and without margin displayed higher fracture resistance than traditional crowns.