Abstract:With increasing patient expectation for aesthetic dental restorations, there has been a drive towards developing ceramic materials to meet this expectation. Multiple ceramic systems have been introduced over the past four decades with considerable advances in material properties. Survival rates of all-ceramic crowns differ by type of ceramic used, fabrication method and clinical indication. Zirconia and lithium disilicate are the most commonly used contemporary ceramic materials in dentistry. Survival data for… Show more
“…9,10 Lithia-based glass ceramics, particularly lithium disilicate (LDS), became popular among clinicians and dental technicians since it was introduced in dentistry, due to its chemically bond capability, light reflection similar to natural enamel, high long-term survival rates and adequate fitting accuracy using the heat-press technique. [11][12][13][14][15][16] Therefore, lithium disilicate has been demonstrated to be suitable for several clinical indications, such as inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, three-unit bridges up to premolars, implant abutments and crowns. 17 The use of LDS also introduced the concept of minimally invasive dentistry-occlusal veneers and reduced thickness crowns.…”
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of different hydrofluoric acid concentrations and etching times on the surface, chemical composition and microstructure of lithium disilicate.Material and MethodsNinety specimens of pressed lithium disilicate (LDS) were obtained (IPS e.max Press, Rosetta SP and LiSi Press). The specimens of each material were divided in two groups according to the hydrofluoric acid concentration: 5% and 10% (n = 15/group), and subdivided according to the etching time: 20, 40 and 60 s (n = 5/group). Crystalline evaluations and chemical composition were performed through x‐ray diffraction (XRD) and energy‐dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy (EDS), respectively. Microstructural analyses were performed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), surface roughness (Ra), and material thickness removal evaluation. Thickness removal and Ra data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05).ResultsXRD demonstrated characteristic peaks of lithium disilicate crystals, lithium phosphate and of a vitreous phase for all materials. EDS identified different compositions and SEM confirmed different surface responses to acid etching protocols. Material and etching time influenced Ra and material thickness removal (p < 0.05).ConclusionHydrofluoric acid concentration and etching time affect the surface characteristics of LDS differently. LiSi Press presented higher resistance to hydrofluoric acid etching compared to e.max Press and Rosetta SP.Clinical SignificanceApplying the appropriate etching protocol is pivotal to avoid excessive material removal and to prevent jeopardize the mechanical and optical properties of the material.
“…9,10 Lithia-based glass ceramics, particularly lithium disilicate (LDS), became popular among clinicians and dental technicians since it was introduced in dentistry, due to its chemically bond capability, light reflection similar to natural enamel, high long-term survival rates and adequate fitting accuracy using the heat-press technique. [11][12][13][14][15][16] Therefore, lithium disilicate has been demonstrated to be suitable for several clinical indications, such as inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, three-unit bridges up to premolars, implant abutments and crowns. 17 The use of LDS also introduced the concept of minimally invasive dentistry-occlusal veneers and reduced thickness crowns.…”
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of different hydrofluoric acid concentrations and etching times on the surface, chemical composition and microstructure of lithium disilicate.Material and MethodsNinety specimens of pressed lithium disilicate (LDS) were obtained (IPS e.max Press, Rosetta SP and LiSi Press). The specimens of each material were divided in two groups according to the hydrofluoric acid concentration: 5% and 10% (n = 15/group), and subdivided according to the etching time: 20, 40 and 60 s (n = 5/group). Crystalline evaluations and chemical composition were performed through x‐ray diffraction (XRD) and energy‐dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy (EDS), respectively. Microstructural analyses were performed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), surface roughness (Ra), and material thickness removal evaluation. Thickness removal and Ra data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05).ResultsXRD demonstrated characteristic peaks of lithium disilicate crystals, lithium phosphate and of a vitreous phase for all materials. EDS identified different compositions and SEM confirmed different surface responses to acid etching protocols. Material and etching time influenced Ra and material thickness removal (p < 0.05).ConclusionHydrofluoric acid concentration and etching time affect the surface characteristics of LDS differently. LiSi Press presented higher resistance to hydrofluoric acid etching compared to e.max Press and Rosetta SP.Clinical SignificanceApplying the appropriate etching protocol is pivotal to avoid excessive material removal and to prevent jeopardize the mechanical and optical properties of the material.
“…Over the last decades, the use of ceramic materials in several areas of dentistry has increased and, consequently, the number of researches on the chemical properties and manufacturing techniques on the use of these materials has grown (Willard & Chu, 2018). The current use of ceramics in dentistry is wide and stems from a long historical background (Anusavice, 2013, Raposo et al, 2014Butt, Thanabalan, Ayub, & Bourne, 2019). Dental ceramics are considered a good restorative option for oral rehabilitations, due to their mechanical, physical, and aesthetic properties which are adequate for several clinical situations (Silva et al, 2017, Zhang et al, 2019.…”
The aim of this clinical report is to present the replacement of unsatisfactory metal-ceramic crowns of elements 12, 11, 21 and 22, by lithium disilicate glass-reinforced ceramic crowns in a patient with skeletal anterior open bite. A patient sought care at the Dental Hospital at the School of Dentistry of UFU, complaining of odor between the metal-ceramic crowns of the antero-superior teeth. After clinical and radiographic examination, invasion of the biological space was noticed, surgery was indicated in order to restore the biological space. After healing, the pre-existing cast metal posts were masked using an opaque composite resin and the teeth were reprepared for full all-ceramic crowns. Impressions were taken in two steps, using PVS associated to retraction cords. The ceramic copings were obtained in lithium disilicate ceramic, and the veneering was performed by stratification. After testing the ceramics crowns in relation to, fit, function and aesthetic results, cementation was completed using modified absolute isolation, followed by prophylaxis of preparations with pumice and saline, surface treatment of the ceramic restorations and luting using self-adhesive resin cement. Finally, an occlusal splint was produced to control the effects of bruxism and orofacial pain symptoms. The anterior open skeletal bite was a challenging factor for the rehabilitation of this patient; however, one must consider the entire process that the patient would undergo if choosing for orthognathic surgery, and the patient should be aware of the case limitations. In addition, the use of lithium disilicate glass-reinforced ceramics proved the versatility of this material for anterior aesthetic restorations.
“…In the late 1700s, ceramics were introduced as restorative materials in dentistry, taking advantage of their ability to mimic the form and color of natural teeth [2]. The three basic types of materials that are used for indirect dental restorations include metal alloys (both all-metal and metal-ceramic), ceramics, and resin-based composites [3]. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) restorations have the benefit of combining clinical durability with acceptable cosmetic results.…”
BackgroundOne of the most frequently encountered issues with metal-ceramic restorations is the fracture of veneering porcelain. This in-vitro study aims to evaluate the effect of clinical sandblasting with 50 μm aluminum oxide and 30 μm silica-coated particles on the surface roughness of metal cores and the subsequent effect on their fracture resistance after the addition of specific adhesive and packable composite as a repair material.
MethodologyMetal cores (n = 21) were digitally designed and three-dimensionally printed by selective laser melting (SLM) technique. These cores were randomly divided into three groups. Group A (n = 8) was sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide and veneered with light cure composite. Group B (n = 8) was sandblasted with 30 μm silica-coated particles and veneered with light cure composite. Group C control group (n = 5) was sandblasted in the laboratory with 250 μm aluminum oxide and veneered with porcelain. All specimens were tested for surface roughness by a stylus profilometer. After adding the veneering material, all specimens were subjected to a fracture resistance test through a universal testing machine.
ResultsOne-way analysis of variance test showed a significantly higher difference for the specimens sandblasted in the laboratory using 250 μm aluminum oxide. Fracture resistance values showed no significant difference between groups A and B.
ConclusionsGroups A and B showed no significant difference in surface roughness, but their fracture resistance values were above the acceptable clinical limit. Despite the rough nature of metal cores fabricated by the SLM technique, sandblasting with silica-coated particles may be an effective way to optimize the fracture resistance of the repair material because it provides the basis for chemical adhesion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.