Fracture Resistance of New Metal-Free Materials Used for CAD-CAM Fabrication of Partial Posterior Restorations.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate in vitro the fracture resistance and fracture type of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials. Materials and Methods: Discs were fabricated (10 × 1.5 mm) from four test groups (N = 80; N = 20 per group): lithium disilicate (LDS) group (control group): IPS e.max CAD®; zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate (ZRLS) group: VITA SUPRINITY®; polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICN) group: VITA ENAMIC®; resin nanoceramics (RNC) group: LAVA™ ULTIMATE. Each disc was cemented (following the manufacturers' instructions) onto previously prepared molar dentin. Samples underwent until fracture using a Shimadzu® test machine. The stress suffered by each material was calculated with the Hertzian model, and its behavior was analyzed using the Weibull modulus. Data were analyzed with ANOVA parametric statistical tests. Results: The LDS group obtained higher fracture resistance (4588.6 MPa), followed by the ZRLS group (4476.3 MPa) and PICN group (4014.2 MPa) without statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Hybrid materials presented lower strength than ceramic materials, the RNC group obtaining the lowest values (3110 MPa) with significant difference (p < 0.001). Groups PICN and RNC showed greater occlusal wear on the restoration surface prior to star-shaped fracture on the surface, while other materials presented radial fracture patterns. Conclusion: The strength of CAD-CAM materials depended on their composition, lithium disilicate being stronger than hybrid materials.

Are Metal-Free Monolithic Crowns the Present of Prosthesis? Study of Mechanical Behaviour.

PURPOSE: To analyze in vitro the mechanical behavior of five types of complete coverage crowns fabricated from different materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five full coverage crowns were divided into five groups according to material: Group I, metal core with feldspathic ceramic covering (MC- control group); Group II, zirconia core with feldspathic ceramic covering (CZ); Group III, tetragonal monolithic zirconia (TMZ); Group IV, cubic monolithic zirconia (CMZ); Group V, high molecular weight polymethyl methacrylate (PMMAG) doped with graphene nanoparticles. All crowns underwent in vitro fatiguing by dynamic loading in wet conditions to simulate the masticatory forces to which prosthodontic materials are subject in the oral medium. Lastly, fracture resistance was evaluated by static compression testing. RESULTS: The fracture resistance values obtained were as follows: Group MC, 2443.6 ± 238.6 N; Group CZ, 2095.4 ± 329.2 N; Group TMZ, 2494.6 ± 236.6 N; Group CMZ, 1523.6 ± 325.2 N; and Group PMMAG, 1708.9 ± 386.6 N. Group MC presented higher strength with statistically significant differences in comparison with Groups CZ (P = 0.002), CMZ (P < 0.001), and PMMAG (P < 0.001). Weibull distribution showed less probability of cumulative biomechanical failure in Groups MC and TMZ. CONCLUSIONS: Metal-ceramic and tetragonal zirconia showed high fracture resistance, while cubic zirconia and PMMA doped with graphene nanoparticles obtained lower values.