The Effect of Core Material, Veneering Porcelain, and Fabrication Technique on the Biaxial Flexural Strength and Weibull Analysis of Selected Dental Ceramics
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to compare the effect of veneering porcelain (monolithic or bilayer specimens) and core fabrication technique (heat-pressed or CAD/CAM) on the biaxial flexural strength and Weibull modulus of leucite-reinforced and lithium-disilicate glass ceramics. In addition, the effect of veneering technique (heat-pressed or powder/liquid layering) for zirconia ceramics on the biaxial flexural strength and Weibull modulus was studied.
Five ceramic core materials (IPS Empress Esthetic, IPS Empress CAD, IPS e.max Press, IPS e.max CAD, IPS e.max ZirCAD) and three corresponding veneering porcelains (IPS Empress Esthetic Veneer, IPS e.max Ceram, IPS e.max ZirPress) were selected for this study. Each core material group contained three subgroups based on the core material thickness and the presence of corresponding veneering porcelain as follows: 1.5 mm core material only (subgroup 1.5C), 0.8 mm core material only (subgroup 0.8C), and 1.5 mm core/veneer group: 0.8 mm core with 0.7 mm corresponding veneering porcelain with a powder/liquid layering technique (subgroup 0.8C-0.7VL). The ZirCAD group had one additional 1.5 mm core/veneer subgroup with 0.7 mm heat-pressed veneering porcelain (subgroup 0.8C-0.7VP). The biaxial flexural strengths were compared for each subgroup (n = 10) according to ISO standard 6872:2008 with ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc multiple comparison test (p≤ 0.05). The reliability of strength was analyzed with the Weibull distribution.
For all core materials, the 1.5 mm core/veneer subgroups (0.8C-0.7VL, 0.8C-0.7VP) had significantly lower mean biaxial flexural strengths (p < 0.0001) than the other two subgroups (subgroups 1.5C and 0.8C). For the ZirCAD group, the 0.8C-0.7VL subgroup had significantly lower flexural strength (p= 0.004) than subgroup 0.8C-0.7VP. Nonetheless, both veneered ZirCAD groups showed greater flexural strength than the monolithic Empress and e.max groups, regardless of core thickness and fabrication techniques. Comparing fabrication techniques, Empress Esthetic/CAD, e.max Press/CAD had similar biaxial flexural strength (p= 0.28 for Empress pair; p= 0.87 for e.max pair); however, e.max CAD/Press groups had significantly higher flexural strength (p < 0.0001) than Empress Esthetic/CAD groups. Monolithic core specimens presented with higher Weibull modulus with all selected core materials. For the ZirCAD group, although the bilayer 0.8C-0.7VL subgroup exhibited significantly lower flexural strength, it had highest Weibull modulus than the 0.8C-0.7VP subgroup.
The present study suggests that veneering porcelain onto a ceramic core material diminishes the flexural strength and the reliability of the bilayer specimens. Leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic cores have lower flexural strength than lithium-disilicate ones, while fabrication techniques (heat-pressed or CAD/CAM) and specimen thicknesses do not affect the flexural strength of all glass ceramics. Compared with the heat-pressed veneering technique, the powder/liquid veneering technique exhibited lower flexural strength but increased reliability with a higher Weibull modulus for zirconia bilayer specimens. Zirconia-veneered ceramics exhibited greater flexural strength than monolithic leucite-reinforced and lithium-disilicate ceramics regardless of zirconia veneering techniques (heat-pressed or powder/liquid technique).
- SourceAvailable from: Helene Fron Chabouis
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The chemical composition differs between ceramic and composite inlays and onlays, and explains most of their clinical properties. Ceramic inlays and onlays (ceramics) are mainly composed of glass, with some crystals added to increase strength [6,7]. Composite inlays and onlays (composites) are made of a resinous matrix and fillers of different types . "
ABSTRACT: Dental caries is a common disease and affects many adults worldwide. Inlay or onlay restoration is widely used to treat the resulting tooth substance loss. Two esthetic materials can be used to manufacture an inlay/onlay restoration of the tooth: ceramic or composite. Here, we present the protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical efficacy of both materials for tooth restoration. Other objectives are analysis of overall quality, wear, restoration survival and prognosis. The CEramic and COmposite Inlays Assessment (CECOIA) trial is an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter RCT involving two hospitals and five private practices. In all, 400 patients will be included. Inclusion criteria are adults who need an inlay/onlay restoration for one tooth (that can be isolated with use of a dental dam and has at least one intact cusp), can tolerate restorative procedures and do not have severe bruxism, periodontal or carious disease or poor oral hygiene. The decayed tissue will be evicted, the cavity will be prepared for receiving an inlay/onlay and the patient will be randomized by use of a centralized web-based interface to receive: 1) a ceramic or 2) composite inlay or onlay. Treatment allocation will be balanced (1:1). The inlay/onlay will be adhesively luted. Follow-up will be for 2 years and may be extended; two independent examiners will perform the evaluations. The primary outcome measure will be the score obtained with use of the consensus instrument of the Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) World Dental Federation. Secondary outcomes include this instrument's items, inlay/onlay wear, overall quality and survival of the inlay/onlay. Data will be analyzed by a statistician blinded to treatments and an adjusted ordinal logistic regression model will be used to compare the efficacy of both materials. For clinicians, the CECOIA trial results may help with evidence-based recommendations concerning the choice of materials for inlay/onlay restoration. For patients, the results may lead to improvement in long-term restoration. For researchers, the results may provide ideas for further research concerning inlay/onlay materials and prognosis.This trial is funded by a grant from the French Ministry of Health.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01724827.Trials 09/2013; 14(1):278. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-278 · 1.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "MPa and 365.1 (46.0) MPa], which had been obtained from specimens of a similar size and shape to ours and by a similar method.3,11 Rosetta SM also had a similar flexural strength value to IPS e.max CAD. "
ABSTRACT: There has been a growing interest in glass ceramic systems with good esthetics, high fracture resistance and bonding durability, and simplified fabrication techniques using CAD/CAM. The aim of this study is to compare flexural strength before and after heat treatment of two lithium disilicate CAD/CAM blocks, IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Rosetta SM (Hass), and to observe their crystalline structures. Biaxial flexural strength was tested according to ISO 6872 with 20 disc form specimens sliced from each block before and after heat treatment. Also, the crystalline structures were observed using field-emission scanning microscopy (FE-SEM, Hitachi) and x-ray diffraction (XRD, Rigaku) analysis. The mean values of the biaxial flexural strength were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test at a significance level of p = 0.05. There were no statistically significant differences in flexural strength between IPS e.max CAD and Rosetta SM either before heat treatment or after heat treatment. For both ceramics, the initial flexural strength greatly increased after heat treatment, with significant differences (p < 0.05). The FE-SEM images presented similar patterns of crystalline structure in the two ceramics. In the XRD analysis, they also had similar patterns, presenting high peak positions corresponding to the standard lithium metasilicate and lithium disilicate at each stage of heat treatment. IPS e.max CAD and Rosetta SM showed no significant differences in flexural strength. They had a similar crystalline pattern and molecular composition.08/2013; 38(3):134-40. DOI:10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.134
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate interfacial nanoleakage expression of the combination of different cementation procedures and different crown systems. Forty-five human premolars prepared to receive single crowns were randomly divided into three groups (n=15) based on the materials to be used for crown fabrication and cementation: group 1: Zirc (Ivoclar-Vivadent) cemented with Multilink Automix; group 2: Ivoclar disilicate IPS Empress 2 luted with Excite DSC in combination with Variolink II; group 3: AAdva Zirconia (GC) cemented with G-Cem Automix. The specimens were then assessed for interfacial nanoleakage expression and the amount of silver deposits along the interface was quantified. The thickness of the cement was assessed at 5 different levels: cervical margins, midway between the cervical margin and the occlusal wall along the axial walls and at the occlusal wall. The nanoleakage scores and the cement thickness were analyzed with Kruskall-Wallis non-parametric Analysis of Variance and Dunn's Multiple-range post hoc test. Group 2 showed significantly less nanoleakage expression than group 1 (p<0.05). The groups can be ranked in the following order 3<1<2 with regard to the cement thickness. There was no correlation among combination of different cementation procedures and different crown systems and interfacial nanoleakage. Also the cement thickness and the degree of nanoleakage cannot be related. The amount of cement found at the cervical margins of all groups showed discrepancies within a clinical acceptable range.Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 08/2012; 28(10):1105-11. DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.005 · 3.77 Impact Factor