Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of repressing and different surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. Material and Methods: A total of 52 lithium disilicate glass-ceramic discs (IPS emax Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were fabricated using the heat-press technique. The discs were divided into two groups; group (P): discs fabricated from new e.max ingots (n=26), group (R): discs fabricated from reused e.max buttons (n=26). Each group was subdivided into subgroup (E): discs were etched with hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) (n=13), subgroup (S): discs were air-abraded with 110 µm alumina particles. All specimens were subjected to X-ray Diffraction analysis, Scanning Electron Microscope, Energy Dispersive X-Ray, Thermo-Cycling, and Shear Bond Strength Testing. Results: Repressed Etched subgroup (RE) recorded the statistically highest shear bond strength value, followed by the Pressed Etched subgroup (PE), while the statistically lowest shear bond strength value was recorded for the Pressed Air-Abraded subgroup (PS) and Repressed Air-Abraded subgroup (RS). Conclusion: Repressing the leftover buttons for the construction of new lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations has no adverse effect on the bond strength of the resin cement to the ceramic. Hydrofluoric acid surface treatment improves the shear bond strength and durability of resin cement bond to both pressed and repressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Air-abrasion cannot be considered as a reliable surface treatment when bonding to lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. Keywords Heat pressed; Lithium disilicate glass-ceramics; Repressing; Shear bond strength; Surface treatment.

Objective: The recycling of heat pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic leftover material has been reported to be done by dental laboratories. The effect of this procedure on the fracture resistance of single crowns is unknown, especially when it is functioning inside the oral cavity with subsequent exposure to temperature changes and cycles of mastication. Material and Methods: A total of 28 lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns (IPS emax Press) were constructed and randomly assigned into two groups (n = 14); Group (P): Included crowns fabricated from new e.max ingots. Group (R): Included crowns fabricated from repressed e.max buttons. Specimens of each group were divided into two equal subgroups (n = 7) according to whether the aging of specimens will be performed or not before fracture resistance testing. Subgroup (N), samples were subjected to fracture resistance without thermo-mechanical aging, while subgroup (A), samples were subjected to thermo-cycling and cyclic loading before being subjected to fracture strength testing. Different methods; SEM, XRD, EDAX were used to characterize the properties of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics before and after repressing. Results: The highest statistically significant fracture resistance value was recorded for the subgroup (RN) repressed/non-aged, followed by the subgroup repressed/aged (RA), while the lowest statistically significant mean value was recorded for the subgroup pressed/aged (PA). There was no significant difference between pressed/non-aged (PN) and repressed/aged (RA) subgroups. Conclusion: Repressing of leftover buttons may increase the fracture resistance of IPS emax Press crowns. Thermo-mechanical aging may negatively affect the fracture resistance of IPS emax Press crowns, yet Repressing may decrease this effect. Clinical implications: This is a novel approach that targets a point of research that has not been investigated before. It elaborates how repressing may decrease the effect of aging and increase the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate crowns. Thus, recycling of lithium disilicate glass ceramics might decrease its failure and prolong their serviceability.   Keywords Fracture resistance; Heat pressed; Lithium disilicate; Recycling; Repressing; Thermo-mechanical aging.

Objectives:The goal of this review was to identify the biological complication of implant abutment materials in relative to alveolar bone around implant supported superstructure. Methodology: An electronic database search and further a manual searching was directed to detect RCTs, and cohort studies that give evidence about different abutment materials complication. Pocket depth, amount of rescission and crestal bone loss were attributed to alveolar bone loss. Results: fourteen clinical studies were detected from an initial search of 107 studies and the extraction of the analyzing data were tabled according to complication output. Pocket probing depth were documented in eight studies, PPD around Zirconium implant abutments was 3.2 mm versus 3.4 mm for Titanium abutment. Five studies examined the recession index for Zirconium and Titanium implant abutments. The RI ranged from 0 to 0.4 at Titanium implant abutments and 0 to 0.3 at Zirconium implant abutments. For the alveolar loss around Zirconia implant abutment was stated to differ from 0.2-1.48 and 0.3-1.43mm at Titanium abutments. Conclusion: The data reported in this systematic review did not give an evidence for the complication regarding all ceramic versus metallic implant abutment. However, it can be concluded that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute decision for the choice of ceramic or metallic as implant abutment material relative to alveolar bone response. The meta-analysis presented a statistically significant difference between abutment material with superiority for the all ceramic abutments over metallic abutment

No abstract