The Effect of Die Material on the Crown Fracture Strength of Zirconia Crowns.

BACKGROUND: Determination of the eligibility of several tooth analog materials for use in crown fracture testing. METHODS: A standardized premolar crown preparation was replicated into three types of resin dies (C&B, low modulus 3D printed resin; OnX, high modulus 3D printed resin composite; and highest modulus milled resin composite). 0.8 mm zirconia crowns were bonded to the dies and the maximum fracture load of the crowns was tested. Twelve extracted human premolars were prepared to a standardized crown preparation, and duplicate dies of the prepared teeth were 3D printed out of C&B. Zirconia crowns were bonded to both the dies and natural teeth, and their fracture load was tested. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the fracture load of zirconia crowns bonded to standardized dies of C&B (1084.5 ± 134.2 N), OnX (1112.7 ± 109.8 N) or Lava Ultimate (1137.5 ± 88.7 N) (p = 0.580). There was no statistical difference between the fracture load of crowns bonded to dentin dies (1313 ± 240 N) and a 3D-printed resin die (C&B, 1156 ± 163 N) (p = 0.618). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the static fracture load of zirconia crowns bonded to standardized resin dies with different moduli or between a low modulus resin die and natural dentin die.

Characterization of materials used for 3D printing dental crowns and hybrid prostheses.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the filler weight percentage (wt%), filler and resin composition, flexural strength, modulus, and hardness of several 3D-printed resins to direct and indirect restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four 3D-printed resins (C&B MFH, Ceramic Crown, OnX, and OnX Tough), one milled resin composite (Lava Ultimate), one conventional composite (Filtek Supreme), and one ceramic (IPS e.max CAD) were evaluated. Filler wt% was determined by the burned ash technique, and filler particle morphology and composition were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy, respectively. Organic resin composition was analyzed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Three-point bend flexural strength and modulus of the materials were determined by ISO 4049 or ISO 6872. Vickers microhardness was measured. Data were compared with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc analysis. Linear regression analysis was performed for filler wt% versus flexural strength, modulus, and hardness. RESULTS: 3D-printed resins were composed of various sized and shaped silica fillers and various types of methacrylate resins. Significant differences were found among filler wt% with some materials around 3% (C&B MFH), others between 33% and 38% (OnX Tough and OnX), others around 50% (Ceramic Crown), and some around 72% (Filtek Supreme and Lava Ultimate). All 3D-printed resins had significantly lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than the conventional and milled resin composites and ceramic material (p < 0.001). Filler wt% demonstrated a linear relationship with modulus (p = 0.013, R2 = 0.821) and hardness (p = 0.018, R2 = 0.787) but not flexural strength (p = 0.056, R2 = 0.551). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed resins contain from 3% to 50% filler content. Filler wt% alone does not affect flexural strength, but strength may be affected by resin composition as well. Although the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than milled and conventional composite and ceramic, they demonstrated nonbrittle plastic behavior. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The properties of 3D-printed resins vary based on their composition, which affects their clinical applications.

Effect of resin cement selection on fracture resistance of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies on the fracture performance of a recently introduced computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic containing virgilite with different cements are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of crowns made of a recently introduced chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate containing virgilite cemented with different types of adhesive luting cement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty complete coverage crowns for a maxillary right central incisor were milled out of a lithium disilicate with virgilite (CEREC Tessera) (n=48) and a traditional lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) (n=12) using a chairside CAD-CAM system (Primescan). The central incisor tooth preparation included a 1.5-mm incisal reduction, a 1.0-mm axial reduction, and a 1.0-mm chamfer finish line. The restorations were bonded with different types of resin cement to 3D printed dies of the tooth preparation and were divided into 5 groups (n=12 per group): e.max CAD with Multilink Automix (E.Mu); Tessera with Multilink Automix (T.Mu); Tessera with Calibra (T.Ca); Tessera with Unicem (T.Un); and Tessera with Speedcem (T.Sp). The cemented restorations were stored in water for 30 days and then loaded until they were fractured in compression. The load at fracture was analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the honestly significant difference (HSD) Tukey test (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance of traditional lithium disilicate and virgilite lithium disilicate anterior crowns significantly differed depending on the type of resin cement used (P<.05). Group E.Mu displayed the highest values (946.35 ±155 N), followed by group T.Un (819.59 ±232 N), group T.Sp (675.52 ±153 N), and group T.Mu (656.95 ±193 N). The lowest values were displayed by group T.Ca (567.94 ±184 N). CONCLUSIONS: The fracture resistance of lithium disilicate containing virgilite and traditional lithium disilicate crowns cemented with the same cement displayed statistically similar values. However, significant differences were observed when the virgilite lithium disilicate crowns were cemented with different types of adhesive luting cement. The crowns in the T.Ca group displayed the lowest fracture resistance.