Comparison of fracture strength of two chairside CAD/CAM ceramic blocs with different thickness

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2021.01.002

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To provide theoretical basis for clinical CAD/CAM restorations with a comparison of the fracture strength between two chairside CAD/CAM immediate restorative materials (IPS e.max CAD and Vita Enamic) with different occlusal thickness in vitro. METHODS: IPS e.max CAD and Vita Enamic full-crowns with occlusal thicknesses 1.5/2.0/2.5 mm were fabricated with CEREC and adhesively seated to dies customized by manufacturer (n=42). All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 ℃ for 24 h. Later, static fractural loading was performed. The fracture surface was observed through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive spectrum (EDS). The composites of two materials were detected by X-Ray diffraction (XRD) techniques. The results of fracture strength were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and t-test via SPSS 20.0 software package. RESULTS: With the increase of occlusal thickness, the fracture strength of IPS e.max CAD increased remarkably. However, the Vita Enamic's fracture strength remained the same with no significant difference. With the occlusal thickness increased from 1.5 to 2.0 mm, there was no significant difference in the fracture strength between IPS e.max CAD group and Vita Enamic group. As the thickness increased from 1.5 to 2.0 mm, the fracture strength of IPS e.max CAD group was significantly higher than that of Vita Enamic group. The results of SEM showed that the filler particles of IPS e.max CAD were smaller compared to that of Vita Enamic. Cone cracks were mainly found in the fracture surface of IPS e.max CAD, while radical cracks appeared in Vita Enamic. EDS showed the metal oxide and SiO₂ in Vita Enmic was significantly higher than that in IPS e.max CAD. XRD showed that the primary crystal phase of IPS e.max CAD was lithium silicate, while Vita Enamic was amorphous. CONCLUSIONS: Both IPS e.max CAD and Vita Enamic can meet the standard of clinical application as the occlusal thickness reaches 1.5 mm. IPS e.max CAD showed better fracture resistance when the thickness was greater than 2.0 mm.

Key words: Chairside CAD/CAM, All-ceramic restoration, Thickness, Fracture strength

CLC Number:

R783.1

LIN Chen-guan-lu, HU Xiao-kun, YAN Yu-xin, QU Yan-hui, LIU Mei, ZHANG Fei-min. Comparison of fracture strength of two chairside CAD/CAM ceramic blocs with different thickness[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2021, 30(1): 7-12.

References

[1] van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital[J]. Dent Mater, 2012, 28(1): 3-12.
[2] Willard A, Gabriel Chu TM.The science and application of IPS e.Max dental ceramic[J]. Kaohsiung J Med Sci, 2018, 34(4): 238-242.
[3] Steinbrenner H.Multichromatic and highly translucent hybrid ceramic Vita Enamic[J]. Int J Comput Dent, 2018, 21(3): 239-250.
[4] Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P, et al.Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 119(3): 384-389.
[5] Zimmermann M, Egli G, Zaruba M, et al.Influence of material thickness on fractural strength of CAD/CAM fabricated ceramic crowns[J]. Dent Mater J, 2017, 36(6): 778-783.
[6] 吴艳玲,张修银. CAD/CAM全瓷修复体抗折性研究进展[J]. 口腔颌面修复学, 2009, 10(3): 181-185.
[7] 张骏,赵克, 王勤琴, 等. 不同直径压头对磨牙e.max全瓷冠失效模式的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学研究, 2008, 2(4): 21-23.
[8] Stappert CF, Chitmongkolsuk S, Silva NR, et al.Effect of mouth-motion fatigue and thermal cycling on the marginal accuracy of partial coverage restorations made of various dental materials[J]. Dent Mater, 2008, 24(9): 1248-1257.
[9] Schimmel M, Memedi K, Parga T, et al.Masticatory performance and maximum bite and lip force depend on the type of prosthesis[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2017, 30(6): 565-572.
[10] Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y.Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material[J]. Dent Mater, 2014, 30(5): 564-569.
[11] He LH, Swain M.A novel polymer infiltrated ceramic dental material[J]. Dent Mater, 2011, 27(6): 527-534.
[12] Sonmez N, Gultekin P, Turp V, et al.Evaluation of five CAD/CAM materials by microstructural characterization and mechanical tests: a comparative in vitro study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2018, 18(1): 5-11.
[13] Awada A, Nathanson D.Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2015, 114(4): 587-593.
[14] Wang F, Chai Z, Deng Z, et al.Effect of heat-pressing temperature and holding time on the microstructure and flexural strength of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0126896.
[15] Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, et al.Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2015, 55(1): 1-11.
[16] Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO.Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials[J]. Dent Mater, 2016, 32(11): e275-e283.
[17] Wu X, Nakagawa M, Teraoka F.Failure morphology of all-ceramic prostheses[J]. Dent Mater J, 2012, 31(3): 494-498.
[18] Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, et al.A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2015, 28(3): 227-235.
[19] Al-Akhali M, Chaar MS, Elsayed A, et al.Fracture resistance of ceramic and polymer-based occlusal veneer restorations[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017, 74: 245-250.