The LTD treatment induced the tetragonal-to-monoclinic transformation with surface roughening in zirconia prepared using dental procedures.

There was no significant difference in the marginal adaptation of both material copings. After the trimming process, the glass infiltration firing cycle improved the vertical marginal discrepancy for both IZ and IA copings. Clinical implications. IA and IZ copings fabricated by CAD/CAM technology have an acceptable marginal fit as documented in the literature, and the glass infiltration process improves the marginal fit after machining.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To determine if surface treatment and cement selection for traditional 3 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (3Y‐PSZ), “translucent” 5 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia (5Y‐Z), or lithium disilicate crowns affected their fracture load. Materials and Methods Crowns with 0.8 mm uniform thickness (96, n = 8/group) were milled of 3Y‐PSZ (Lava Plus), 5Y‐Z (Lava Esthetic), or lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) and sintered/crystallized. Half the crowns were either particle‐abraded with 30 µm alumina (zirconias) or etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid (lithium disilicate), and the other half received no surface treatment. Half the crowns from each group were luted with resin‐modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus) and half were luted with a resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2) to resin composite dies. Crowns were load cycled (100,000 cycles, 100 N force, 24°C water) and then loaded with a steel indenter until failure. A three‐way ANOVA examined the effects of material, cement, and surface treatment on fracture load. Post‐hoc comparisons were performed with the Tukey‐Krammer method. Results Fracture load was signficiantly different for materials and cements (p < 0.0001) but not surface treatments (p = 0.77). All lithium disilicate crowns luted with RMGI failed in fatigue loading cycling; 3Y‐PSZ and 5Y‐Z crowns luted with resin showed a higher fracture load compared with RMGI (p < 0.001). With resin cement, there was no signficant difference in fracture load between 5Y‐Z and lithium disiliciate (p = 1) whereas 3Y‐PSZ had a higher fracture load (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Cement type affected fracture load of crowns but surface treatment did not. The 0.8 mm uniform thick crowns tested benefited from using resin cement regardless of type of ceramic material. Crowns fabricated from 5Y‐Z may be particle‐abraded if luted with resin cement.

The formation of a superficial layer of tiny flakes has been observed on teeth prepared by Erbium lasers. It has been suggested that removing this layer (mechanically or chemically) may increase the bond strength of the resin composite. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of various etching times on bond strength of resin composite to enamel and dentin prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Sixty previously flattened human molars were irradiated for 10 s by an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Enamel (E) specimens were etched with 37% H(3)PO(4) for 20, 40 or 60 s and dentin (D) specimens were etched for 15 or 30 s. All specimens were prepared for a standard shear bond strength (SBS) test (1 mm/min). Data were analyzed [ANOVA, Tukey post-hoc, a < 0.05)] and the failure mode was studied under SEM. Mean SBS+/-sd (MPa) for each group was 16.97 +/- 7.77 (E20s), 21.34 +/- 3.55 (E40s), 14.08 +/- 4.77 (E60s), 13.62 +/- 7.28 (D15s) and 13.15 +/- 6.25 (D30s). SBS for E40s was significantly higher than E60s (p = 0.023). No difference was noted between the dentin groups. SEM evaluation showed predominantly cohesive failure. Within the limits of this study, etching time significantly influenced the SBS of composite resin to laser-prepared enamel. SEM showed subsurface cracks, fissures, and deformities leading to predominantly cohesive failure in both enamel and dentin.

Within the limitations of this study, tilting the implant apex to the lingual significantly reduced the fracture strength of angle-corrected zirconia abutments. Accordingly, while the angle between the occlusal force application and the long axis of the implant decreases, the resistance (force) to fracture decreases.