RESUMO
The aim of this study was to compare the influence of heat treatment on fracture resistance (FR) of different ceramic materials used for CAD/CAM systems. METHODS: Eighty monolithic restorations were designed using the same parameters and milled with a CAD/CAM system (CEREC SW 5.0, PrimeMill, Dentsply-Sirona™, Bensheim, Germany), forming five study groups: Group 1 (n = 10), CEREC Tessera (Dentsply-Sirona™, Bensheim, Germany) crystallized (CCT), Group 2 (n = 10), CEREC Tessera uncrystallized (UCT), Group 3 (n = 20), Emax-CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (CEC), Group 4 (n = 20), Vita Suprinity (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) (CVS), and Group 5 (n = 20) Cameo (Aidite, Qinhuangdao, China) (CC). RESULTS: The average FR was similar for CCT, CC, and CEC at above 400 N, while CVS and UCT had the lowest values at 389,677 N and 343,212 N, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among the three ceramic materials that exhibited an FR above 400 N, CCT was considered the first recommended choice for CAD/CAM systems. This material not only demonstrated the highest FR but also exhibited outstanding consistency in the related measurements without the presence of outliers. Although the CC material showed high FR, its high dispersion revealed inconsistencies in the repetitions, suggesting caution in its use.
RESUMO
The aim of this study is to analyze the effects of different endodontic irrigants and adhesive systems on the resin bond strength of fiber post cementation. In total, 144 single-rooted, unrestored human teeth were endodontically treated and randomly divided into 12 groups according to four endodontic irrigants (distilled water as control; EDTA 17%; NaOCl 5%; chlorhexidine digluconate 2%) and three different adhesive/resin cement systems (etch-and-rinse: orthophosphoric acid, Parabond® A+B/Paracore®; self-etch: ParaBond® Non-Rinse Conditioner, Parabond® A+B/Paracore®; Universal: ClearfilTM Universal Bond/ClearfilTM DC Core Plus). Forty-eight hours after post cementation, ten teeth from each group were cross-sectioned into three discs (cervical, middle and apical regions). Thirty specimens of each group (n = 30) were submitted to a push-out test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The remaining two teeth of each group were sectioned in the same manner, and the resin-dentin interface was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results were statistically analyzed with the ANOVA test and Tukey's test (p < 0,01). The adhesive protocols and post space region showed no significant effect on bond strength (p > 0.01). The combination of NaOCl 5% and ClearfilTM Universal Bond reduced the adhesive strength (p < 0.01). The NaOCl 5%, in relation to other irrigants, significantly decreased the push-out bond strength.
RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength of monolithic zirconium dioxide subjected to a sintering process in two different furnaces: InFire HTC Speed and CEREC SpeedFire. METHODS: Forty restorations were designed and machined using a computer aided design / computer aidded machine (CAD/CAM) system. The restorations were randomly assigned to two groups of 20 samples each, Group 1 for the SpeedFire furnace (fast sintering) and Group 2 for the InFire furnace (slow sintering). Each of the crowns was subjected to a maximum compression load recorded in Newtons (N) and a displacement control with a speed of 1 mm/min. RESULTS: Group 1 presented an average of 1222.8 N and a standard deviation of 136.91 N. Group 2 obtained a mean of 1068.5 N and a standard deviation of 316.39 N. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the two groups, and the mechanical strength of the material was not affected, which would imply a saving of clinical and laboratory time when performing rapid sintering on monolithic translucent zirconium dioxide restorations. However, rapidly sintered restorations have limited reliability.
RESUMO
The aim of this study was to determine the resistance to fracture of feldspathic restorations with lithium disilicate and crystallized with different ovens and programs. METHODS: Sixty monolithic restorations (LD) (EMAX CAD™ LT, Ivoclar-Vivadent™) were designed with the same parameters and milled with a CAD/CAM system (CEREC SW 5.1, CEREC MCXL, Dentsply-Sirona™, Bensheim). Each restoration was randomly assigned by randomization software (RANDNUM) to one of the three groups: (a) (NF) Oven P310 (Ivoclar, Vivadent) normal crystallization program, (b) (FF) Ivoclar P310 oven (Ivoclar-Vivadent™) rapid crystallization program, or (c) (SF) SpeedFire oven (Dentsply-Sirona™). RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the groups (ANOVA, p < 0.05). The NF and FF groups showed the highest values of resistance to fracture, with statistically significant differences with the SF group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a furnace from the same dental company with predetermined programs from the material manufacturer, as well as using a predetermined program for rapid crystallization, has no effect on fracture resistance, and would save clinical time when performing ceramic restorations with lithium disilicate, while keeping their mechanical properties.
