Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness

Mörmann, Werner; Stawarczyk, Bogna; Ender, Andreas; Sener, Beatrice; Attin, Thomas; Mehl, Albert

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003

Cited by 289 publications

(320 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

243

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The E-Modulus of the restorations in relation to the supporting material may be highly decisive. In this study, maximum loading force for 1.5 mm hybrid ceramic restorations (VITA Enamic; group F) was 1,063.6 N. The E-Modulus of VITA Enamic is reported to be 30 GPa 3) . The maximum loading force for 1.5 mm feldspathic restorations (VITA Mark II; group A) was 634.8 N. The E-Modulus of VITA Mark II is reported to be 63 GPa 3) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of material thickness on fractural strength of CAD/CAM fabricated ceramic crowns

Zimmermann

Egli

Zaruba

et al. 2017

Dental Materials Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fracture behavior of CAD/CAM fabricated crowns was investigated as a function of material thickness for six silicate ceramic materials: Mark II, e.max CAD, Celtra Duo milled, Celtra Duo fired, Suprinity, Enamic. Crowns with thicknesses 0.5/1.0/1.5 mm were fabricated with CEREC and adhesively seated to dies fabricated with stereolithography technology (n=144). Thermomechanical loading and fractural loading was performed. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Scheffé test. For 1.5 mm, all crowns survived fatigue testing, for 1.0 mm, survival was 100% only for materials e.max CAD and Suprinity. For 0.5 mm, best survival rate was 37.5% for Suprinity. Maximum fractural loading significantly varied among the groups. For 0.5 mm, highest value was found for Suprinity (660.1 N). Mark II showed lowest values for 1.0 mm (482.0 N), and 1.5 mm groups (634.8 N). e.max CAD showed highest values for 1.0 mm (774.2 N), and 1.5 mm groups (1,240.8 N).Keywords: Feldspathic ceramic VITA Mark II, Lithium disilicate ceramic e.max CAD, Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic Celtra Duo and VITA Suprinity, Hybrid ceramic VITA Enamic, CERECColor figures can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at J-STAGE.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Compared to composite resin materials, ceramic materials are more brittle and more susceptible to fracture, if overload or inappropriate load is performed 3) . The material characteristics of ceramics have been shown to significantly depend on prior thermal and mechanical fatigue loading 4) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of material thickness on fractural strength of CAD/CAM fabricated ceramic crowns

Zimmermann

Egli

Zaruba

et al. 2017

Dental Materials Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, PMMA-based polymer materials indicated for temporary restorations present higher wear than resin-based polymeric composites indicated for permanent CAD/CAM restorations [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE The study aimed to analyse the shear bond strength of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)-and compositebased polymer materials repaired with a conventional methacrylate-based composite after different surface pretreatments. METHODS Each 48 specimens was prepared from six different CAD/CAM polymer materials (Ambarino high-class, artBloc Temp, CAD-Temp, Lava Ultimate, Telio CAD, Everest C-Temp) and a conventional dimethacrylate-based composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, control) and aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5-55°C). The surfaces were left untreated or were pretreated by mechanical roughening, aluminium oxide air abrasion or silica coating/silanization (each subgroup n = 12). The surfaces were further conditioned with an etchrinse adhesive (OptiBond FL) before the repair composite (Filtek Supreme XTE) was adhered to the surface. After further thermal cycling, shear bond strength was tested, and failure modes were assessed. Shear bond strength was statistically analysed by twoand one-way ANOVAs and Weibull statistics, failure mode by chi(2) test (p 0.05). RESULTS Shear bond strength was highest for silica coating/silanization > aluminium oxide air abrasion = mechanical roughening > no surface pretreatment. Independently of the repair pretreatment, highest bond strength values were observed in the control group and for the composite-based Everest C-Temp and Ambarino high-class, while PMMA-based materials (artBloc Temp, CAD-Temp and Telio CAD) presented significantly lowest values. For all materials, repair without any surface pretreatment resulted in adhesive failures only, which mostly were reduced when surface pretreatment was performed. CONCLUSIONS Repair of CAD/CAM high-density polymers requires surface pretreatment prior to adhesive and composite application. However, four out of six of the tested CAD/CAM materials did not achieve the repair bond strength of a conventional dimethacrylate-based composite. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Repair of PMMA-and composite-based polymers can be achieved by surface pretreatment followed by application of an adhesive and a conventional methacrylate-based composite. Conclusions: Repair of CAD/CAM high-density polymers requires surface pretreatment prior to adhesive and composite application. However, four out of six of the tested CAD/CAM materials did not achieve the repair bond strength of a conventional dimethacrylate-based composite.Clinical Relevance: Repair of PMMA-and composite-based polymers can be achieved by surface pretreatment followed by application of an adhesive and a conventional methacrylate-based composite.2

show abstract

“…Although the CAD/ CAM composite materials are very promising, there are also disadvantages, especially with regard to their abrasion resistance. In this context, laboratory and clinical studies report increased wear after only short loading periods 8,[10][11][12] . To overcome the latter problem, a new generation of composites in dentistry, known as PAEK (polyaryletherketone) materials or as PEEK (polyetheretherketone) or PEKK (polyetherketoneketone) or reinforced PEEK/PEKK materials with inorganic fillers may be a suitable alternative with comparable wear properties in the range of ceramics as shown in some pilot trials (unpublished data).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: Influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types

Stawarczyk

Eichberger

Uhrenbacher

et al. 2015

Dental Materials Journal

Self Cite

153

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness

Cited by 289 publications

References 37 publications

Influence of material thickness on fractural strength of CAD/CAM fabricated ceramic crowns

Influence of material thickness on fractural strength of CAD/CAM fabricated ceramic crowns

Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers

Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: Influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About