The science and application of IPS e.Max dental ceramic

Willard, Alec; Chu, Tien Min G.

doi:10.1016/j.kjms.2018.01.012

Cited by 96 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Leucite-based glass-ceramic is composed of lamina-like, irregular-shaped leucite crystals, with sizes ranging from 2-7 µm, as shown in Figure 8b. Typical commercial products made of leucite-based glass-ceramic are IPS Empress CAD and IPS Classic (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) [15,62]. Their applications span from resin-bonded laminate veneers, to inlays and onlays, and to anterior and posterior crowns.…”

Section: Leucite-based Dental Glass-ceramicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, IPS Empress 2 LD glass-ceramics had high clinical failure rates at 9% to 50% after 24 to 60 months [63], because of the insufficient flexural strength of this material for multiunit prostheses. Subsequently, a new and improved LD glass-ceramic (IPS e.max) with a much higher flexural strength (up to 400 MPa) was launched and the material gained popularity [14,15]. The IPS e.max LD glass-ceramics come in two forms, Press and CAD.…”

Section: Lithium Disilicate (Ld)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned in 4.1, IPS e.max CAD was introduced in 2006 as an LD glass-ceramic, specifically prepared for CAD/CAM soft milling [15]. The material comes prepared in a "blue state," which permits easier machining and intraoral occlusal adjustment [64].…”

Section: Lithium Disilicate (Ld)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The glass-ceramic contains ~70 vol% of interlocked rod-like lithium disilicate crystals. The material possesses a flexural strength of 350 MPa and a fracture toughness of 2.9 MPa m 1/2 [14,15], which were more than twice those of leucitebased glass-ceramics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Glass–Ceramics in Dentistry: A Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, we first briefly introduce the general knowledge of glass–ceramics, including the discovery and development, the application, the microstructure, and the manufacturing of glass–ceramics. Second, the review presents a detailed description of glass–ceramics in dentistry. In this part, the history, property requirements, and manufacturing techniques of dental glass–ceramics are reviewed. The review provided a brief description of the most prevalent clinically used examples of dental glass–ceramics, namely, mica, leucite, and lithium disilicate glass–ceramics. In addition, we also introduce the newly developed ZrO2–SiO2 nanocrystalline glass–ceramics that show great potential as a new generation of dental glass–ceramics. Traditional strengthening mechanisms of glass–ceramics, including interlocking, ZrO2–reinforced, and thermal residual stress effects, are discussed. Finally, a perspective and outlook for future directions in developing new dental glass–ceramics is provided to offer inspiration to the dental materials community.

show abstract

Section: Leucite-based Dental Glass-ceramicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lithium Disilicate (Ld)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lithium Disilicate (Ld)mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Glass–Ceramics in Dentistry: A Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That may attributed to, the incorporated zirconia grains act as nuclei for crystallization producing a greater number of smaller crystallites (0.5-1μm) rather than the fewer large crystallites (1.5 μm) that are present in the IPS E.max CAD. Meanwhile, the incorporated zirconia will increase the fracture toughness via the stress-induced toughening mechanism that prevents crack propagation (35) .…”

Section: Fracture Type Determinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Of Different Base Materials On The Micro Leakage And Fracture Resistance Of Recent Ceramic Inlay Restorations

Barakat

Mohammed

2019

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of three different base materials (GIC, Chemfill rock, and SDR,) on microleakage, fracture resistance, and color stability of two ceramic inlays (E max and Vita suprinity). Materials and methods: Sixty extracted premolars were prepared for Class II inlay MOD. For microleakage test thirty teeth divided into three groups (n=10); group (A): restored with (GIC). Group (B): restored with Chemfill rock. Group (C): restored with SDR. After thermocycling the microleakage was evaluated by scores. For evaluation of fracture resistance and color stability, the remaining thirty teeth were divided into two groups(n=15) Group (1): The teeth restored with Emax inlay. Group (2): restored with Vita Suprinity inlay. Each group was subdivided into three subgroups(n=5); Subgroup (I): based with (GIC). Subgroup (II): based with Chemfill Rock. Subgroup (III): based with SDR. Results: For microleakage test; SDR base had stage zero leakage, leakage was higher in GIC base. For fracture resistance test; there is statistically significant high mean of fracture resistance in SDR base. On the other hand there is no statistically significant difference as fracture resistance between E-max, and Vita Suprinity restoration. For color stability test; there is statistically significant difference high mean of color difference in SDR base with p-value <0.05. On the other hand there is no statistically significant difference between E-max, and Vita Suprinity restoration. Conclusion: SDR is the best base regarding microleakage, color stability and fracture resistance. While there is no significant difference between Emax and Vita Suprinity restorations. in color stability and fracture resistance.

show abstract