No abstract

Over the last decade, zirconia (ZrO2)-based ceramic materials have become more applicable to modern dental medicine due to the sustained development of diverse computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems. However, before the cementation and clinical application, the freshly prepared zirconia material (e.g., crowns) has to be processed by sandblasting in the dental laboratory. In this work, the impact of the sandblasting on the zirconia is monitored as changes in morphology (i.e., grains and cracks), and the presence of impurities might result in a poor adhesive bonding with cement. The sandblasting is conducted by using Al2O3 powder (25, 50, 110 and 125 µm) under various amounts of air-abrasion pressure (0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 MPa). There has been much interest in both the determination of the impact of the sandblasting on the zirconia phase transformations and conductivity. Morphology changes are observed by using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), the conductivity is measured by Impedance Spectroscopy (IS), and the phase transformation is observed by using Powder X-Ray Diffraction (PXRD). The results imply that even the application of the lowest amount of air-abrasion pressure and the smallest Al2O3 powder size yields a morphology change, a phase transformation and a material contamination.

Dental ceramics represents a major structural material in fixed prosthodontics. Increasing demands for esthetics led to development of new ceramic materials in order to eliminate the use of metal framework and for all ceramic restorations with mechanical properties to withstand high occlusal forces. Out of all the present ceramic materials, zirconium-ceramic has the best mechanical properties, and is the only material that can be used for longer span fixed dental restorations. Despite its excellent mechanical properties, to achieve great esthetics, due to absence of translucency, zirconium-dioxide cannot be used as a single material and needs veneering with more esthetic ceramic. When introduced in dental medicine, it was considered an almost ideal material for fixed prosthodontics, but clinical use and in vivo and in vitro studies showed many problems which still persist despite the improvements.
This review aims to reveal new developments in zirconium-ceramics and technical procedures which could increase clinical performance and longevity of these restorations.

In this study, two different dental ceramics, based on zirconia-reinforced lithium-silicate (LS1) glass-ceramics (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and lithium disilicate (LS2) ceramics (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were examined. They were tested prior to and after the crystallization by sintering in the dental furnace. Additionally, the impact of ageing on ceramic degradability was investigated by immersing it in 4% acetic acid at 80 °C for 16 h. The degradability of the materials was monitored by Impedance Spectroscopy (IS), X-Ray Powder Diffraction (XRPD), and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM) techniques. It was detected that LS2 (vs. LS1) samples had a lower conductivity, which can be explained by reduced portions of structural defects. XRPD analyses also showed that the ageing increased the portion of defects in ceramics, which facilitated the ion diffusion and degradation of samples. To summarize, this study suggests that the non-destructive IS technique can be employed to probe the ageing properties of the investigated LS1 and LS2 ceramics materials.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate whether the less invasive approach (reduced thickness of the restoration) will result in a comparable risk of failure and similar aesthetic results, compared to conventional layered full porcelain crowns, and can, therefore, be used as a good alternative. Material and Methods: The tested ceramic was lithium-disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max). Forty-four patients with endodontically treated premolars or molars were randomized into two groups and provided with single crowns. One group received conventional all-ceramic crowns made from a lithium-disilicate core and hand-veneered aesthetic ceramic, while another group received full-contoured lithium-disilicate ceramic crowns with reduced wall thickness than manufactures recommendations. The teeth for conventional crowns were prepared with 1 mm rounded shoulder and 2 mm occlusal reduction, while teeth for monolithic crowns were prepared with 0.6 mm wide rounded shoulder and 1 mm occlusal reduction. All crowns were prepared by the same clinician and manufactured in the same laboratory by the same technician. The survival and aesthetics of the crowns were assessed by the independent clinician. Apart from this, patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was evaluated. The assessment was double blind as both the examiner and the patients did not know which type of crown was provided. The observation period was 36 months. Survival of the crowns was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and aesthetics and participants’ aesthetic satisfaction with the crowns was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Results: The one-year survival rate for layered crowns was 100% and for monolithic crowns 95.5%. The median patients’ aesthetic satisfaction with both crowns was 100%. Conclusions: The results indicate similar one-year survival rate of reduced-thickness monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns and conventional veneered crowns. Differences with patients’ satisfaction with the aesthetics of both crowns were not statistically significant and it can be said that the patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was the same for both crowns.