Evaluation of the Fracture Strength of Different CAD/CAM Inlay Restorations After Accelerated Aging

Year 2019, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 155 - 162, 01.08.2019

Tuba Yılmaz Savaş , İşıl Karaokutan , Meryem Gülce Subaşı , Filiz Aykent

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.456939

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture
resistance of inlay restorations manufactured by CAD/CAM using different materials
after accelerated artificial aging.

Methods: Class I inlay preparations were made for 40
mandibular molar teeth. The teeth were allocated into four groups (n=10)
according to the type of manufacturing material used: feldspathic-ceramic
(CEREC blocks); leucite-based glass-ceramic (IPS Empress CAD); resin
nano-ceramic (Lava Ultimate); and a control (intact teeth). After obtaining
digital impressions, restorations were designed and milled with CAD/CAM. Inlay
restorations were cemented to the inlay cavities using a dual-polymerizing
resin cement (Rely X Ultimate) and stored in distilled water at 37°C for a
week. All the samples were then exposed to accelerated ultraviolet aging for
300 hours. Finally, a compressive load was applied to the samples until
fracture. Statistical analysis was conducted using One-Way ANOVA and the Tukey
HSD test (a=0.05).

Results: The mean fracture strength values of the groups were;
Control (1555.3±412.2 N)> Lava Ultimate (1525±394N)>IPS Empress CAD (1364.3±545.6N) > CEREC(1231.9±412.2N), respectively. However, there was no
statistically significant difference in mean fracture strength among different
inlay restoration groups (P>0.05).
Fifty percent of the both CEREC and IPS Empress CAD groups and  60% of the Lava Ultimate group showed
reparable fractures.

Conclusion: The type of
material used did not influence the fracture strength of inlay-restored molar
teeth and inlay restorations did not weaken the strength of the restored
teeth. Therefore, all of the tested
materials are suitable for use in the posterior region.

Keywords: Inlay, fracture strength, resin nano-ceramic,
ceramic, CAD/CAM

Keywords

Inlay, fracture strength, resin nano-ceramic, ceramic

Evaluation of the fracture strength of different CAD/CAM inlay restorations after accelerated aging

Abstract

Amaç:
Bu
çalışmanın amacı, farklı materyaller kullanılarak CAD/CAM ile üretilen inley
restorasyonların hızlandırılmış yapay yaşlandırma sonrasında kırılma direncini
karşılaştırmaktır.

Gereç
ve Yöntemler: Kırk adet mandibular molar dişe sınıf I
inlay preparayonu yapıldı. Dişler, kullanılan malzeme tipine göre dört gruba (n
= 10) ayrıldı: feldspatik-seramik (CEREC Blocks); lösit bazlı cam seramik (IPS
Empress CAD); rezin nano-seramik (Lava Ultimate); ve  kontrol (sağlam dişler). Dijital ölçüler elde
edildikten sonra restorasyonlar CAD/CAM ile tasarlandı ve üretildi. İnlay
restorasyonlar, dual polimerize bir rezin siman (Rely X Ultimate) kullanılarak
inlay boşluklarına simante edildi ve bir hafta boyunca 37°C'de distile su içinde
saklandı. Tüm örnekler daha sonra 300 saat boyunca hızlandırılmış ultraviyole
yaşlandırmasına maruz bırakıldı. Son olarak, kırılıncaya kadar örneklere bir
sıkıştırma yükü uygulandı. İstatistiksel analiz Tek Yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey HSD
testi (a = 0,05)
kullanılarak yapıldı.

Bulgular:
Grupların
ortalama kırılma dayanımları sırasıyla şu şekildedir: Kontrol (1555,3 ± 412,2 N) > Lava Ultimate (1525 ± 394 N) > IPS Empress CAD (1364,3 ± 545,6 N) > CEREC (1231,9 ± 412,2 N). Ancak grupların ortalama
kırılma dayanımları arasında istatistiksel bir fark bulunamadı (P>0,05). CEREC ve IPS Empress CAD
gruplarının %50’si ve Lava Ultimate grubunun %60’ı tamir edilebilir kırık tipi
sergiledi.

Sonuç:
Kullanılan
materyal tipi, inley ile restore edilmiş molar dişlerin kırılma direncini
etkilememiştir ve inley restorasyonlar restore edilen dişlerin gücünü
zayıflatmamıştır. Bu nedenle, test edilen tüm materyaller posterior bölgede
kullanılabilir.

Anahtar
Kelimeler: İnlay, Kırılma dayanımı, Rezin
Nano-Seramik, Seramik, CAD/CAM

Keywords

İnlay, Kırılma dayanımı, Rezin Nano-Seramik, Seramik

References

• Referans 1. St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(6):551-557.
• Referans 2. Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29(12):1209-1218.
• Referans 3. Seow LL, Toh CG, Wilson NH. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with all-ceramic restorations. J Dent 2015;43(1):126-132.
• Referans 4. Batalha-Silva S, de Andrada MA, Maia HP, Magne P. Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: direct versus CAD/CAM inlays. Dent Mater 2013;29(3):324-331.
• Referans 5. Liu X, Fok A, Li H. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30(3):327-333.
• Referans 6. Frankenberger R, Hartmann V, Krech M, Krämer N, Reich S, Braun A. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:9-20.
• Referans 7. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204(9):505-511.
• Referans 8. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(2):199-202.
• Referans 9. Quinn GD, Giuseppetti AA, Hoffman KH. Chipping fracture resistance of dental CAD/CAM restorative materials: part I--procedures and results. Dent Mater 2014;30(5):99-111.
• Referans 10. Vasquez VZ, Ozcan M, Kimpara ET. Evaluation of interface characterization and adhesion of glass ceramics to commercially pure titanium and gold alloy after thermal- and mechanical-loading. Dent Mater 2009;25(2):221-231.
• Referans 11. Zhang Y, Lawn B. Long-term strength of ceramics for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004;69(2):166-172.
• Referans 12. Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014;30(4):424-432.
• Referans 13. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(4):587-593.
• Referans 14. Koller M, Arnetzl GV, Holly L, Arnetzl G. Lava ultimate resin nano ceramic for CAD/ CAM: customization case study. Int J Comput Dent 2012;15(2):159-164.
• Referans 15. Harada A, Nakamura K, Kanno T, Inagaki R, Ortengren U, Niwano Y, Sasaki K, Egusa H. Fracture resistance of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated composite resin-based molar crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 2015;123(2):122-129.
• Referans 16. Ab-Ghani Z, Jaafar W, Foo SF, Ariffin Z, Mohamad D. Shear bond strength of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing feldspathic and nano resin ceramics blocks cemented with three different generations of resin cement. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(5):355-359.
• Referans 17. Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF. Surface Evaluation of Polishing Techniques for New Resilient CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28:56-66.
• Referans 18. Turgut S, Bagis B. Colour stability of laminate veneers: an in vitro study. J Dent 2011;39(3):57-64.
• Referans 19. Heydecke G, Zhang F, Razzoog ME. In vitro color stability of double-layer veneers after accelerated aging. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85(6):551-557.
• Referans 20. Beltrão M, Spohr AM, Oshima H, Mota EG, Burnett JL. Fracture strength of endodontically treated molars transfixed horizontally by a fiber glass post. Am J Dent 2009;22(1):9-13.
• Referans 21. Andrade J, Stona D, Bittencourt H, Borges G, Burnett L, Spohr A. Effect of different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials and thicknesses on the fracture resistance of occlusal veneers. Oper Dent In-Press, doi.org/10.2341/17-131-L.
• Referans 22. Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999;25(1):6-8.
• Referans 23. Mjor I, Gordan V. Failure, repair, refurbishing and longevity of restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(5):528-534.
• Referans 24. Gomes PN, Dias S, Moyses M, Pereira L, Negrillo B, Ribeiro J. Effect of artificial accelerated aging on Vickers microhardness of composite resins. Gen Dent 2008;56(7):695-699.
• Referans 25. Goiato MC, Santos DMd, Haddad MF, Pesqueira AA. Effect of accelerated aging on the microhardness and color stability of flexible resins for dentures. Braz Oral Res 2010;24(1):114-119.
• Referans 26. Bottino MA, Campos F, Ramos NC, Rippe MP, Valandro LF, Melo RM. Inlays made from a hybrid material: adaptation and bond strengths. Oper Dent 2015;40(3):83-91.
• Referans 27. Habekost LdV, Camacho GB, Azevedo EC, Demarco FF. Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98(3):186-192.
• Referans 28. Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, Mahmoud SH. Fracture resistance of prepared premolars restored with bonded new lab composite and all-ceramic inlay/onlay restorations: Laboratory study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30:229–239.
• Referans 29. Xu H, Smith D, Jahanmir S, Romberg E, Kelly J, Thompson V, Rekow E. Indentation damage and mechanical properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1998;77(3):472-480.
• Referans 30. 3M ESPE. Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative Technical Product Profile. USA, 2011.
• Referans 31. Pol CW, Kalk W. A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24(6):566-575.
• Referans 32. Hayashi M, Wilson N, Yeung C, Worthington H. Systematic review of ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(1):8-19.
• Referans 33. Chen C, Trindade FZ, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. The fracture resistance of a CAD/CAM Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC) and a CAD ceramic at different thicknesses. Dent Mater 2014;30(9):954-962.
• Referans 34. Cesar PF, Júnior WGM, Braga RR. Influence of shade and storage time on the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and hardness of composites used for indirect restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86(3):289-296.
• Referans 35. Nejatidanesh F, Amjadi M, Akouchekian M, Savabi O. Clinical performance of CEREC AC Bluecam conservative ceramic restorations after five years-a retrospective study. J Dent 2015;43(9):1076-1082.
• Referans 36. Guess PC, Schultheis S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Influence of preparation design and ceramic thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure modes of premolar partial coverage restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110(4):264-273.
• Referans 37. Yoon HI, Sohn PJ, Jin S, Elani H, Lee SJ. Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated Lithium Disilicate MOD Inlays and Onlays with Various Cavity Preparation Designs. J Prosthodont 2018;0:1-6.
• Referans 38. Soares CJ, Martins LR, Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes Neto AJ. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(6):421-429.
• Referans 39. Dietschi D, Maeder M, Meyer J-M, Holz J. In vitro resistance to fracture of porcelain inlays bonded to tooth. Quintessence Int 1990;21(10):823-831.
• Referans 40. Jung Y-G, Peterson I, Kim D, Lawn BR. Lifetime-limiting strength degradation from contact fatigue in dental ceramics. J Dent Res 2000;79(2):722-31.