Statement of problem: Minimally invasive treatments have gained popularity in recent years. However, research comparing the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate partial coverage veneer restorations with that of ceramic crowns is lacking.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations fabricated for preparations of various designs. The designs included veneer preparations with finish lines in the upper, middle, and lower third of the facial surface and ceramic crown preparations with margins in the lower third of the facial surface. All restorations were designed and fabricated using a chairside digital workflow.
Material and methods: Four maxillary right central incisor typodont teeth were prepared for partial coverage veneer preparation with the margin in the upper middle third of the facial surface (PU1/3); partial coverage veneer preparation with margin in lower middle third of the facial surface (PL1/3); complete coverage veneer preparation (CV) with margin in the cervical region; and ceramic crown (CC) preparation. Each preparation was scanned, and 15 casts were 3D printed from each scan. A total of 60 lithium disilicate restorations were fabricated (n=15 per group) using a chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system (Primescan and MCXL). The different restorations were cemented to the 3D printed testing dies with a photopolymerizable resin cement. The specimens were artificially aged with 10 000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55 °C with a dwell time of 30 seconds and were loaded to failure using a universal testing machine. The maximum load to fracture was analyzed using a 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test (α=.05). Additionally, the fracture patterns of the specimens were evaluated with a stereomicroscope for descriptive purposes.
Results: The mean fracture resistance of the chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate veneers and ceramic crowns was statistically different depending on the design of the restoration (P<.05). Group CC demonstrated the highest fracture resistance values (1440.66 N), followed by CV (929.8 N) and PU1/3 (756.13 N). The lowest value was for PL1/3 (532.4 N).
Conclusions: The fracture resistance measured for the maxillary central incisor partial coverage veneers with margins in the middle third of the facial surface appear capable of resisting average occlusal forces. However, these veneers demonstrated lower fracture resistance values when compared with complete coverage veneers. Further, lithium disilicate crowns demonstrated higher fracture resistance than veneers, irrespective of their design.
Published by Elsevier Inc.