Conventional-, bulk-fill- or flowable-resin composites as prosthetic core build-up: Influence on the load-bearing capacity under fatigue of bonded leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic.

This study aimed to evaluate the fatigue performance of simplified ceramic restorations (leucite-reinforced glass ceramic) adhesively cemented onto substrates of different resin composites. Three options from the same commercial line were selected (Tetric N-Line, Ivoclar), classified as Conventional (CRC), Bulk-fill (BRC) and Flowable (FRC), which were used to make discs using a cylindrical metallic device (n = 19; Ø = 10 mm, thickness = 2.0 mm). A total of 57 discs (Ø = 10 mm, thickness = 1.0 mm) were made from CAD/CAM prefabricated blocks of a leucite reinforced glass-ceramic (Empress CAD, Ivoclar) to simulate a monolithic restoration, then were randomly distributed to be bonded on 19 discs of each three different resin composite substrates (CRC; BRC; or FRC) with a dual resin cement (Multilink N; Ivoclar). The samples were subjected to a compression test with a hemispherical stainless-steel piston (Ø = 40 mm) at a monotonic regimen (n = 4; 1 mm/min loading rate and 500 kgf loading cell until fracture). The cyclic fatigue test was performed underwater at a frequency of 20 Hz (n = 15). The first step was applied using 200N for 5000 cycles, followed by increments of 50N at each step of 10,000 until failure. The outcome considered for both tests was the occurrence of radial crack. Specific statistical tests (α = 0.05) were performed for monotonic (One-way ANOVA; Tukey's test) and fatigue data (Kaplan-Meier test; Log-rank test). Fractography of fractured samples were also performed. The FRC group had the lowest failure load in both test regimes (p < 0.05; monotonic: 726.64N; fatigue: 716.67N). There were no differences between the CRC and BRC groups (p > 0.05; monotonic: 989.30 and 990.11N; fatigue: 810.00 and 833.33N, respectively). The same result was obtained considering cycles for fatigue failure (FRC < CRC=BRC). Leucite glass-ceramic bonded to substrates made of flowable resin composite behaves worse mechanically than bonding to conventional or bulk-fill resin composite substrates.

Adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment is detrimental to load-bearing capacity under fatigue of a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an adhesive application after surface treatment on a lithium disilicate ceramic (LD) has an influence on its load-bearing capacity under fatigue. METHODS: LD discs (Ø= 10 mm; thickness= 1 mm) were allocated into 8 groups (n= 15), considering 3 factors: "ceramic surface treatment" - HF: hydrofluoric acid + universal primer application; or MEP: single-component ceramic primer; "adhesive application" - with or without; and "aging protocol" - baseline: 24 h to 7 days; or aging: 180 days of storage + 25,000 thermal cycles. The LD discs were adhesively bonded to glass fiber-reinforced epoxy resin discs (Ø= 10 mm; thickness= 2 mm) and stored according to the condition and each group. Cyclic fatigue testing (initial load= 100 N; step size= 100 N until600 N and after step size= 25 N to failure; 10,000 cycles/step; 20 Hz frequency) was performed. Fractographic and adhesive interface analyzes were also performed. The collected data were then analyzed by Kaplan Meier and Mantel-Cox tests and One-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The adhesive application in the baseline condition had no influence on the load-bearing capacity under fatigue when the HF surface treatment was performed, however, adhesive application for the MEP treatment led to worse results than without it. The adhesive application in the aged condition showed worse fatigue outcomes for both treatments. All specimens presented radial cracks. MEP treatment followed by adhesive application presented the thickest luting layer. CONCLUSION: The adhesive application after surface treatments of a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic is detrimental to its load-bearing capacity under fatigue when adhesively luted onto a supporting substrate.