Traditional versus conservative endodontic access impact on fracture resistance of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate anterior crowns: An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of traditional and conservative endodontic access hole preparation on fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate maxillary right central incisor crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven milled lithium disilicate maxillary right central incisor crowns were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD-CAM system (Planmeca Romexis, Planmeca). The abutment preparation had a 1.0 mm incisal reduction and 1.0 mm chamfer finish. The restorations were bonded with resin cement to printed resin dies (n = 19 per group) and were treated and divided into three groups, (1) no endodontic access, (2) traditional triangular endodontic access, and (3) conservative ovoidal endodontic access. The endodontic access of the crowns was sealed with flowable resin composite. Restorations were subjected to 10,000 cycles of thermal cycling between 5° and 55°C. Then, restorations were loaded and exposed to compressive loading force, and the crack initiation (CI) and complete fracture (CF) were recorded. SEM micrographs of broken specimens on the printed dies were captured. ANOVA test and Bonferroni's correction were used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: The fracture resistance among the three groups varied. Crowns with no endodontic access displayed significantly (p < 0.001) higher resistance [CI: 1025 (121) N; CF 1134 (127) N], followed by crowns with conservative ovoidal endodontic access [CI: 924 (60) N; CF: 1000 (72) N. Crowns with traditional triangular endodontic access showed the significantly (p < 0.001) lowest fracture resistance [CI: 635 (82) N; CF: 709 (75) N]. CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate maxillary anterior crowns is influenced by the type of endodontic access provided. Conservative ovoidal endodontic access provides crowns with higher fracture resistance than traditional triangular endodontic access. Crowns with no endodontic access provided the highest resistance than other types of endodontic access.

Ceramic and Composite Polishing Systems for Milled Lithium Disilicate Restorative Materials: A 2D and 3D Comparative In Vitro Study.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two ceramic and two composite polishing systems for a novel chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic with three-dimensional and two-dimensional microscopy images. This ceramic material can be used for implant-supported or tooth-borne single-unit prostheses. Materials and Methods: Sixty flat samples of novel chairside CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) were divided into five groups (n = 15/group) and treated as follows: Group 1 (NoP), no polished treatment; group 2 (CeDi), polished with ceramic Dialite LD (Brasseler USA); group 3, (CeOp) polished with ceramic OptraFine (Ivoclar Vivadent); group 4, (CoDi) polished with composite DiaComp (Brasseler USA), and group 5 (CoAs), polished with composite Astropol (Ivoclar Vivadent). The polished ceramic surface topography was observed and measured with three-dimensional and two-dimensional images. Results: All polishing systems significantly reduced the surface roughness compared with the non-polished control group (Sa 1.15 µm). Group 2 (CeDi) provided the smoothest surface arithmetical mean eight with 0.32 µm, followed by group 3 (CeOp) with 0.34 µm. Group 5 (CoAs) with 0.52 µm provided the smoothest surface among the composite polishing kits. Group 4 (CoDi) with 0.66 µm provided the least smooth surface among all polishing systems tested. Conclusions: Despite the effectiveness of ceramic polishing systems being superior to composite polishing systems of the CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorative material, both polishing systems significantly improved the smoothness.

Light Transmission for a Novel Chairside CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Ceramic.

AIM: To evaluate light transmission in a novel chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic with different thicknesses and with and without polishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty flat samples (10 specimens/group) were fabricated from novel chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (Amber Mill, Hass Bio) with different thicknesses and with and without polishing as follows: (1) 1.0 mm thickness without polishing (1.0NoP); (2) 1.0 mm thickness with polishing (1.0Po); (3) 1.5 mm thickness without polishing (1.5NoP); (4) 1.5 mm thickness with polishing (1.5Po); (5) 2.0 mm thickness without polishing (2.0NoP); and (6) 2.0 mm thickness with polishing (2.0Po). Specimens were polished with a polishing system for lithium disilicate restorations following the manufacturer's recommendations. Light transmission was evaluated with a curing radiometer. Obtained data were subjected to two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05). SEM observations were conducted to evaluate surface microstructure. RESULTS: The light intensity through the lithium disilicate blocks with and without polishing was 200.9 mW/cm2 (16.1%) and 194.4 mW/cm2 (15.6%) for 1.0 mm specimens, 119.3 mW/cm2 (9.5%) and 111.9 mW/cm2 (9.0%) for 1.5 mm specimens, and 102.3 mW/cm2 (8.2%) and 96.0 mW/cm2 (7.7%) for 2.0 mm specimens. SEM images showed a smoother surface with polishing compared to nonpolished specimens. CONCLUSION: The thickness and polishing of the restorations were both significant influential factors in light transmission. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The range of light transmission percentage through the novel chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate blocks was 7.7-16.1%, suggesting that light attenuation through the material may influence the polymerization reaction of resin luting cement in the bonding process.