Comparison of Fracture Resistance for Chairside CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns and Overlays with Different Designs.

PURPOSE: To determine the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate full coverage crowns and two different designs of overlay restorations for premolars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CAD/CAM lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD for CEREC/HT A1 C14, Ivoclar Vivadent) restorations (15 specimens/group) with 1.5 mm occlusal thickness and 1.0 mm chamfer were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC, Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were prepared in three different designs: (1) full coverage crowns, (2) overlays with the margin located 2 mm above the gingiva, and (3) overlays with the margin located 4 mm above the gingiva. Restorations were cemented using conventional resin luting cement (Multilink, Ivoclar Vivadent) with primer system (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent) to resin printed dies, load cycled (2,000,000 load cycles at 1 Hz with 275 N force), and then finally loaded with a steel indenter until failure. Scanning electron microscopy observations of fractured surfaces were also conducted. Group results were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance, and the medians were evaluated independently with Kruskal-Wallis. RESULTS: The fracture force of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate restorations was significantly different (p < 0.001) depending on the design of the restoration. Full coverage crowns showed significantly higher force to fracture (1018.8 N) than both types of overlays (p = 0.002 for overlay 2.0 mm and p < 0.001 for overlay 4.0 mm above gingiva). Among the two overlays, the restoration with the margin located 2 mm above the gingiva showed significantly higher fracture force (813.8 N) than the overlay with margin at 4 mm above the gingiva (436.1 N; p < 0.001). The fracture appearance of the crowns was much more complex than that of the overlay restorations. CONCLUSIONS: Full coverage chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate premolar crown showed higher fracture resistance than overlay restorations. Overlays with the margin located 2 mm above the margin demonstrated higher resistance than those with the margin located 4 mm above the gingiva.

Fracture Resistance of Chairside CAD/CAM Molar Crowns Fabricated with Different Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Materials

PURPOSE: To compare the fracture resistance of five different groups of chairside CAD/CAM molar crowns fabricated from various lithium disilicate ceramic materials (LDC): one conventional precrystallized CAD/CAM LDC, two novel precrystallized LDCs, and one fully crystallized LDC tested both with and without optional sintering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate molar crowns (n = 12 per group) with 1.5-mm occlusal thickness and a 1.0-mm chamfer finish were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC, Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were divided into five groups: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Straumann n!ce; (4) Straumann n!ce with optional sintering; and (5) Supreme CAD. Restorations were cemented using conventional resin luting cement and primer system to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations were loaded for 100,000 cycles with 275-N force, and the load at break (LB) and peak load (PL) until fracture were measured. SEM images of fracture surfaces on the printed dies were obtained. RESULTS: Fracture resistance was significantly different depending on the material. Supreme CAD showed the highest fracture resistance (LB: 1,557.2 N; PL: 1,785.8 N), followed by Amber Mill (LB: 1,393.0 N; PL: 1,604.2 N) and IPS e.max CAD (LB: 1,315.7 N; PL: 1,461.9 N). Straumann n!ce without (LB: 862.4 N; PL: 942.9 N) and with the optional sintering (LB: 490.4 N; PL: 541.0 N) showed significantly lower fracture resistance than the others. CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate molar crowns varied depending on the material, and the novel materials did not perform as well as the conventional equivalents. Fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic block materials showed lower fracture resistance than precrystallized counterparts and should be used with caution in the clinic, especially with optional sintering.

Fracture Resistance of Chairside CAD/CAM Molar Crowns Fabricated with Different Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Materials.

PURPOSE: To compare the fracture resistance of five different groups of chairside CAD/CAM molar crowns fabricated from various lithium disilicate ceramic materials (LDC): one conventional precrystallized CAD/CAM LDC, two novel precrystallized LDCs, and one fully crystallized LDC tested both with and without optional sintering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate molar crowns (n = 12 per group) with 1.5-mm occlusal thickness and a 1.0-mm chamfer finish were designed and fabricated with a chairside CAD/CAM system (CEREC, Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were divided into five groups: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Straumann n!ce; (4) Straumann n!ce with optional sintering; and (5) Supreme CAD. Restorations were cemented using conventional resin luting cement and primer system to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations were loaded for 100,000 cycles with 275-N force, and the load at break (LB) and peak load (PL) until fracture were measured. SEM images of fracture surfaces on the printed dies were obtained. RESULTS: Fracture resistance was significantly different depending on the material. Supreme CAD showed the highest fracture resistance (LB: 1,557.2 N; PL: 1,785.8 N), followed by Amber Mill (LB: 1,393.0 N; PL: 1,604.2 N) and IPS e.max CAD (LB: 1,315.7 N; PL: 1,461.9 N). Straumann n!ce without (LB: 862.4 N; PL: 942.9 N) and with the optional sintering (LB: 490.4 N; PL: 541.0 N) showed significantly lower fracture resistance than the others. CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of chairside CAD/CAM lithium disilicate molar crowns varied depending on the material, and the novel materials did not perform as well as the conventional equivalents. Fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic block materials showed lower fracture resistance than precrystallized counterparts and should be used with caution in the clinic, especially with optional sintering.

Symmetry of horizontal and sagittal condylar path angles: an in vivo study.

The specific aims of the study were to determine (1) the mean condylar path inclination (CP) and Bennett angles (BA) in occlusally healthy dentate subjects and (2) whether there was right-left asymmetry of CP and BA. Eccentric movements of three mm and five mm from reference positions were recorded for 45 subjects using a Cadiax system. The mean right CP angles: 48.8 +/- 8 degrees (three mm) and 48.2 +/- 7 degrees (five mm); the mean left CP angles: 48.8 +/- 8 degrees (three mm) and 49.5 +/- 70 (5mm) were steeper than suggested means for setting articulators. The mean right BA: 7.7 +/- 3 degrees (3mm) and 7.9 +/- 4 degrees (five mm); and the mean left BA: 8.1 +/- 4 degrees (three mm) and 8.5 +/- 4 degrees (five mm) were lower than suggested means for setting articulators. Paired-t-tests showed no significant differences between right-left CP and right-left BA. These results suggest that current recommended average settings for semi-adjustable articulators for dentate individuals need to be reassessed.

Conservative approach for management of fractured maxillary central incisors in young adults.

Ceramic restorations could be an acceptable treatment choice for fractured central incisors. A successful esthetic and conservative result to restore damaged anterior teeth can be obtained through proper evaluation, diagnostic wax-up, guided minimal preparations, ceramic selection, and bonding protocols. Handcrafted glass-based restorations can mimic contours and shape of natural teeth.