<i>In vitro</i>study of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses

Choi, Jae-Won; Kim, So-Yeun; Bae, Jong Hyang; Bae, Eun‐Bin; Huh, Jung-Bo

doi:10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.244

Cited by 31 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the second null hypothesis that ceramic type is inconsequential on fracture load was rejected. In agreement with these results, several previous studies showed that zirconia inlay-retained FPDs exhibited higher resistance to fracture when compared to lithium disilicate inlay-retained FPDs [23,24]. The difference may be related to their varying level of mechanical properties.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…The difference may be related to their varying level of mechanical properties. Flexural strength of 444 MPa, elastic modulus of 70 GPa and fracture toughness of 2.3 MPa m 1 = 2 have been reported for Vita Suprinity [23,24]. The result of a study made by Elsaka, showed fracture toughness value of 3.7 MPa m 1 = 2 and flexural strength of 676 MPa for Ceramill Zolid FX Multilayer [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Kermanshah

Motevasselian

Kakhaki

et al. 2020

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture (IRFPD) is a conservative prosthetic option but the mechanical durability of new high strength zirconia reinforced glass ceramic FPDs is not investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare fracture load of 3-unit ceramic FPDs. Materials and methods: Extracted premolars and molars (N ¼ 64) were used to create three test groups (IRFPDs) and one control group (full coverage FPD) (n ¼ 8). The teeth were embedded in PMMA resin with a mesiodistal distance of 6 mm. Premolars had a distal and molars had a mesial inlay preparation (width: 3 mm; height: 4 mm) in the test groups. IRFPDs were made from a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS) or a monolithic zirconia. Zirconia IRFPDs received 2 types of surface treatments: sandblasting (Zr-IRFPD) or internal coating with feldspathic porcelain (ZrC-IRFPD). Control group was made from monolithic zirconia with the same connector size and zirconia surfaces were sandblasted (Zr-FPD). All restorations were cemented using a resin luting cement. After 5000 thermo-cycles, fracture load values (N) were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukeys post hoc test (p ˂ .05). Result: Fracture load (mean ± SD) of Zr-FPDs, Zr-IRFPDs and ZrC-IRFPDs were 672 ± 183, 672 ± 123 and 638 ± 59, respectively, being not statistically different (p > .05). VS-IRFPD exhibited statically lower values (391 ± 136). The predominant mode of failure was fracture at the connector area in all groups. Conclusion: The fracture load of 3-unit IRFPD was significantly affected by types of ceramics but the retainer design and surface treatment in Zr groups did not show a significant effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Kermanshah

Motevasselian

Kakhaki

et al. 2020

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Small porosities and flaws in the microstructure of pressed lithium disilicate crowns may be resulted through fabrication process of the material, this may act as stress raisers leading to a catastrophic effect on the fracture resistance of these crowns. These results were in agreement with other (38)(39)(40).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Comparative Study Between Monolithic Translucent Zirconia (Y-TZP) and IPS Empress 2 in Marginal Fit and Fracture Strength

Hemdan¹,

el-aziz

El-Sharkwy

2019

ADJ-for Girls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose :The aim of this study was to compare between Monolithic Translucent Zirconia (Y-TZP) and IPS E.max press in marginal fit and fracture strength. Materials and methods, forty ceramic crowns were fabricated, Then divided into 4 groups: Group A: Ten monolithic TZI CAD/CAM zirconia crowns N=10 Group B: Ten monolithic IPS E.max press crowns N=10, Group C: Ten veneered ZI CAD/ CAM zirconia core N=10, Group D: Ten veneered IPS E.max press core N=10,then Each group was subdivided into two subgroups: Subgroup 1: Samples not subjected to thermocycling N=5 as control. Subgroup 2: Samples subjected to thermocycling N=5 The samples were cemented to corresponding epoxy resin dies. The marginal fit was measured and scanned with digital microscope. The fracture strength of the restorations were measured by using universal testing machine with a load 5 KN. The obtained data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: The results of marginal fit showed that the vertical marginal gap values of all groups were within the clinically acceptable range. While the Results of fracture resistance showed that fracture strength of monolithic translucent Y-TZP is (3484.28 N) considerably higher than monolithic IPS E.max press (1515.45 N), followed by veneered ZI zirconia (1483.84 N), and finally veneered IPS E.max press (1091.64 N) after thermocycyling. Conclusions: It was found that veneered crown groups recorded lower gap mean values than monolithic groups. The monolithic crown groups recorded higher fracture load mean values than veneered groups. Monolithic translucent Y-TZP zirconia crowns seem to be a promising treatment alternative, especially for patient with a history of fractured restoration.

show abstract

“…As regards mechanical resistance, it has been clearly demonstrated that, in vitro, veneered LS 2 crowns exhibit significantly lower fracture load values (1431.1 ± 404.3 N) compared to monolithic ones (2665.4 ± 759.2 N), the main failure mechanism being bulk fracture initiating from the occlusal surface [14]. To date, there is strong evidence from in vitro studies that, differently from bilayered restorations, monolithic ones show fracture strength and fatigue resistance suitable for use in the posterior areas, both in tooth-and implant-supported single crowns (SC) and 3-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Lithium Disilicate Physico-chemical Features Optical and Mementioning

confidence: 99%

Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The introduction of the new generation of particle-filled and high strength ceramics, hybrid composites and technopolymers in the last decade has offered an extensive palette of dental materials broadening the clinical indications in fixed prosthodontics, in the light of minimally invasive dentistry dictates. Moreover, last years have seen a dramatic increase in the patients' demand for non-metallic materials, sometimes induced by metal-phobia or alleged allergies. Therefore, the attention of scientific research has been progressively focusing on such materials, particularly on lithium disilicate and zirconia, in order to shed light on properties, indications and limitations of the new protagonists of the prosthetic scene. Methods: This article is aimed at providing a narrative review regarding the state-of-the-art in the field of these popular ceramic materials, as to their physical-chemical, mechanical and optical properties, as well as to the proper dental applications, by means of scientific literature analysis and with reference to the authors' clinical experience. Results: A huge amount of data, sometimes conflicting, is available today. Both in vitro and in vivo studies pointed out the outstanding peculiarities of lithium disilicate and zirconia: unparalleled optical and esthetic properties, together with high biocompatibility, high mechanical resistance, reduced thickness and favorable wear behavior have been increasingly orientating the clinicians' choice toward such ceramics. Conclusions: The noticeable properties and versatility make lithium disilicate and zirconia materials of choice for modern prosthetic dentistry, requiring high esthetic and mechanical performances combined with a minimal invasive approach, so that the utilization of such metal-free ceramics has become more and more widespread over time.

show abstract

In vitrostudy of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses

Cited by 31 publications

References 36 publications

Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses

Comparative Study Between Monolithic Translucent Zirconia (Y-TZP) and IPS Empress 2 in Marginal Fit and Fracture Strength

Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About