RESUMO
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cervical marginal fit of porcelain laminate veneer (PLV) restorations made from two different types of CAD/CAM ceramic laminates: CEREC C PC and E.max (LD). Materials and Methods: This in-vitro experiment used a total of 32 human maxillary first premolars that were clean and free of any cracks or caries, extracted for orthodontic purposes. The samples were divided in a random way into two study groups: A and B (n = 16). Each sample was mounted on a dental surveyor and a silicon impression was made to create a silicone index for each tooth in both groups. Standardized preparation was carried out for all the samples by using preparation bur kit for the ceramic veneer system. Subsequently, digital impressions were made for all the samples by using Trios 3 shape intraoral camera (Sirona Dental Systems). The design of veneer restorations was made using Sirona inLab CAD SW 16.1 with CEREC inLab MC XL (Dentsply, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The veneer restorations were cemented using 3M RelyX veneer resin cement (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and the samples kept in distilled water for two weeks at 37 °C. All the specimens were subjected to thermocycling in a water bath with temperature varying between 5 °C and 55 °C for 500 cycles. The cervical marginal fit of veneers was evaluated by a digital microscope after sectioning the embedded teeth in acrylic resin. Results: The lowest mean of cervical marginal gap was recorded for Group A (91.59431 ± 1.626069) which was restored with CEREC CAD/CAM veneers, while the highest mean value of the gap was recorded for Group B (106.48863 ± 2.506684) which was restored with IPS E.max CAD. The t-test showed that the type of porcelain veneer restoration had a highly significant effect on the cervical marginal fit (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: CEREC CAD/CAM veneers showed smaller cervical marginal gaps, indicating a better fit compared to the IPS E.max CAD.
RESUMO
Methods: Forty-eight acrylic blocks having central holes with a nominal diameter of 4 mm and a depth of 2 mm were prepared. The holes of the acrylic blocks were filled with Biodentine, which was prepared following the guidelines provided by the manufacturer. Then, the specimens were divided into six groups (n = 8). Groups 1, 2, and 3, Tetric N-Ceram composite bonded to Biodentine with Tetric N-bond, Xeno V+, Bond Force bond, respectively. Group 4, 5, and 6, Filtek Z350 bonded to Biodentine with the same three adhesives. The specimens were placed in distilled water for 24 hours and tested for the SBS in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The test data were listed in a table and independent samples t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted as a part of the statistical analysis. Results: The Tetric N bonding agent achieved the highest SBS followed by Bond Force, and Xeno V and highly significant difference was found. On the other hand, an overall increase in the SBS values of the Tetric N-Ceram resin was noticed in comparison with the Filtek Z350 and the differences was statistically significant. Although the specimens failed in adhesive, cohesive and mixed fracture modes but the cohesive was found to be the dominant failure mode in all groups. Conclusion: Among the tested bonding agents and resin composites, the Tetric N-Ceram composite bonded by Tetric N-bond self-etch adhesive with the Biodentine showed the highest SBS compared to the other combinations.
RESUMO
During restorative treatment, premolars restored with resin filling materials using the conventional incremental-fill technique take longer restoration time and undermine the integrity of the tooth. The aim of this study was to assess fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types of novel bulk-fill composite resin materials. Forty-eight (n = 48) freshly extracted sound maxillary first premolars were used in this in vitro study. The teeth were divided into six groups, each having 8 specimens. Group A (positive control) was allocated for the intact teeth. For specimens in Groups B to F, a large cavity (Class-II MOD) was prepared with a standardized dimension of cavity (3 mm depth on the pulpal floor, 4 mm at the gingival seat, and 3 mm cavity width). Group B represented prepared teeth without any restoration. Group C, Group D, Group E, and Group F were restored with Tetric EvoCeram® incremental-fill (conventional), Beautifil bulk-fill, Filtek posterior bulk-fill, and SonicFill 2 bulk-fill restorative materials, respectively. All samples were finished and polished with an enhanced finishing kit and stored in distilled water for a month before the fracture resistance testing. All the samples were exposed to the axial loading (the speed of crosshead was 1 mm/min) in a computer-controlled universal testing machine (LARYEE, China) via a steel bar (6 mm in diameter) and the maximum applied force in Newton was recorded as the fracture resistance. One-way analysis of variance (SPSS 21) was used to compare the fracture resistance within the groups, and Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine the difference between the groups. The lowest value of fracture resistance was recorded for Group B, and the highest value was recorded for Group A followed by the values of Group D, Group C, Group F, and Group E. One-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (P < 0.05). Nonsignificant difference was found between the premolars restored by bulk-fill and conventional composites. Among the bulk-fill restored specimens, Beautifil restorative demonstrated significantly higher fracture resistance in comparison with the other two bulk-fill restored specimen groups (SonicFill 2 and Filtek). Bulk-fill composite such as Beautifil could be an alternative option to conventional incremental-fill composite for premolar restoration.
