Does Preheating Resin Cements Affect Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Restorations?

Effect of Luting Materials on the Accuracy of Fit of Zirconia Copings: A Non-Destructive Digital Analysis Method

The marginal accuracy of fit between prosthetic restorations and abutment teeth represents an essential aspect with regard to long-term clinical success. Since the final gap is also influenced by the luting techniques and materials applied, this study analyzed the accuracy of the fit of single-tooth zirconia copings before and after cementation using different luting materials. Forty plaster dies with a corresponding zirconia coping were manufactured based on a single tooth chamfer preparation. The copings were luted on the plaster dies (n = 10 per luting material) with a zinc phosphate (A), glass-ionomer (B), self-adhesive resin (C), or resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (D). The accuracy of fit for each coping was assessed using a non-destructive digital method. Intragroup statistical analysis was conducted using Wilcoxon signed rank tests and intergroup analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). Accuracy of fit was significantly different before/after cementation within A (0.033/0.110 µm) and B (0.035/0.118 µm; p = 0.002). A had a significantly increased marginal gap compared to C and D, and B compared to C and D (p ≤ 0.001). Significantly increased vertical discrepancies between A and B versus C and D (p < 0.001) were assessed. Of the materials under investigation, the zinc phosphate cement led to increased vertical marginal discrepancies, whereas the self-adhesive resin cement did not influence the restoration fit.

Effect of bioactive glass particles on mechanical and adhesion properties of resin cements

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the mechanical and adhesive properties of three different resin cements with bioactive glass (BAG) incorporated in two different ratios.

METHODS

BAG was added to different resin cements (3M Rely-X Ultimate, GC Link Ace, and GC Link Force) in different ratios (5% and 10% by weight). The three-point flexural strength, microhardness, and bond strength properties were evaluated. The fracture types of the groups were then analyzed using a stereo microscope. The data were analyzed using a multifactorial analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc tests (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

The addition of BAG reduced the flexural strength of the resin cements (P < 0.05).The effect of BAG addition on the Vickers microhardness value was significantly different for each cement group (P < 0.05). In addition, with the exception of the GC link force group (10% BAG addition), the BAG addition decreased the bond strength of cements to dentin in all the groups (P = 0.171).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirmed that different resin cements comprising different ratios of BAG exhibited different flexural strength, hardness, and bond-strength properties. Since the bond strength values increased with the addition of 10% BAG in the GC Link Force cement group, the effects of different BAG compositions could be worth investigating in future studies.

Fracture resistance of monolithic translucent zirconia crown bonded with different self-adhesive resin cement: influence of MDP-containing zirconia primer after aging

OBJECTIVES

Successful ceramic restorations depend on the strong bonding with resin cement and even stress distribution. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of adding MDP-containing zirconia primer before self-adhesive resin cements with different functional acidic monomers on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty defect-free human maxillary premolars were divided according to the cement type and application of MDP-containing zirconia primer into eight groups (n = 10): Calibra Universal (C), Calibra Universal combined with zirconia primer (CZ), RelyX U200 (R), RelyXU200 combined with zirconia primer (RZ), Panavia SA Cement Plus (P), Panavia SA Cement Plus combined with zirconia primer (PZ), Multilink Speed (M), and Multilink Speed combined with zirconia primer (MZ). After teeth preparation and fabrication of zirconia crowns, each crown was bonded to its corresponding tooth. All specimens were subjected to 10,000 thermocycles between 5 and 55°C, followed by cyclic load (50 N) for 240,000 cycles. Each specimen was subjected to a static axial load until fracture using universal testing machine and the fracture load was recorded. The fracture mode studied and recorded. The fracture load results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

A significant interaction (P = 0.038) of combining MDP-containing zirconia primer and cement type on fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crown was detected. The mean fracture load values of zirconia crown were significantly influenced by the combined application of the MDP-containing zirconia primer with Calibra Universal (P = 0.01), RelyX U200 (P < 0.001), and Multilink Speed (P = 0.038), while there was no significant difference with Panavia SA Cement Plus (P = 0.660). There was significant difference (F = 20.69, P < 0.001) between the mean fracture loads of groups with self-adhesive cements (C, R, P, and M groups). The highest fracture load was recorded with RZ group (2446.90 ± 126.72 N) while the lowest fracture load was recorded with C group (1623.18 ± 149.86 N).

CONCLUSIONS

The self-adhesive resin cement with different acidic functional monomer affects the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crown. Application of MDP-containing primer could improve the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crown with most self-adhesive cements. The application of an MDP-containing primer had no impact on the fracture resistance of monolithic translucent zirconia crown bonded by MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement.

Does Resin Cement Type and Cement Preheating Influence the Marginal and Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns?

This paper assesses the effect of cement type and cement preheating on the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate single crown. Methods: 40 maxillary premolars were selected, restored with lithium disilicate single crowns. Teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10) based on cement type (Panavia SA or LinkForce) and preheating temperature (25 °C or 54 °C). After fabrication of the restoration, cements were incubated at 25 °C or 54 °C for 24 h, and each crown was cemented to its corresponding tooth. After 24 h, all specimens were thermally aged to (10,000 thermal cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C), then load cycled for 240,000 cycles. Each specimen was then sectioned in bucco-palatal direction and inspected under a stereomicroscope at x45 magnification for marginal and internal fit evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed (significance at p ≤ 0.05 level). Results: At the mid-buccal finish line, mid-buccal wall, palatal cusp, mid-palatal wall, mid-palatal finish line, and palatal margin measuring points, there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 25 °C, while there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) at the other points. At all measuring points, except at the palatal cusp tip (p = 0.948) and palatal margin (p = 0.103), there was a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 54 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 54 °C. Regardless of cement preheating, statistically significant differences were found in the buccal cusp tip, central groove, palatal cusp tip, and mid-palatal wall (p ≤ 0.05) in the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C, as well as the mid-palatal chamfer finish line and palatal margin in the LinkForce group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C. At the other measurement points, however, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The type of resin cement affects the internal and marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns. At most measuring points, the cement preheating does not improve the internal and marginal fit of all lithium disilicate crowns.

Fracture Resistance and Failure Mode of Mandibular Molar Restored by Occlusal Veneer: Effect of Material Type and Dental Bonding Surface

This study assesses the effect of the material type (lithium disilicate, zirconia, and polymer-infiltrated ceramic) and dental bonding substrates (dentin, dentin with intra-coronal cavity, and dentin with composite filling) on the fracture resistance and failure mode of molars restored by occlusal veneers. Methods: Ninety occlusal veneers, fabricated from either lithium disilicate, zirconia, or polymer-infiltrated ceramic, were adhesively bonded to teeth prepared with either dentin, dentin with intra-coronal cavity, or dentin with composite filling. All specimens were thermally aged (5000 cycles), then load cycled (120,000 cycles). Each specimen was subjected to a compressive load through fracture, then was examined (×20) to identify the fracture type. Data were statistically analyzed. Results: Material type and dental substrate had no significant effect on the fracture resistance of adhesively retained occlusal veneer restorations. For each material, no significant differences were found between veneers bonded to dentin, dentin with intra-coronal cavity, and dentin with composite filling. Additionally, within each bonding substrate, there were no significant differences between lithium disilicate, zirconia, and polymer-infiltrated ceramic veneers. The adhesive failure was recorded mainly with zirconia occlusal veneer restorations. Conclusions: Considering the fracture results, lithium disilicate, zirconia, and polymer-infiltrated ceramic occlusal veneers perform well whatever the type of dental bonding surface. When the dental bonding surface varies, different occlusal veneer materials should be considered. Occlusal veneers bonded to dentin, dentin with composite filling, or dentin with an intra-coronal cavity exhibited a fracture resistance exceeding the average human masticatory forces in the molar area.