Fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns cemented on solid abutments.J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Jul; 146(7):501-7.JA
Because no information was found in the dental literature regarding the fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns using CEREC (Sirona) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system on solid abutments, the authors conducted a study.
Sixty synOcta (Straumann) implant replicas and regular neck solid abutments were embedded in acrylic resin and randomly assigned (n = 20 per group). Three types of ceramics were used: feldspathic, CEREC VITABLOCS Mark II (VITA); leucite, IPS Empress CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent); and lithium disilicate, IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent). The crowns were fabricated by the CEREC CAD-CAM system. After receiving glaze, the crowns were cemented with RelyX U200 (3M ESPE) resin cement under load of 1 kilogram. For each ceramic, one-half of the specimens were subjected to the fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 millimeter per minute, and the other half were subjected to the fractured resistance testing after 1,000,000 cyclic fatigue loading at 100 newtons.
According to a 2-way analysis of variance, the interaction between the material and mechanical cycling was significant (P = .0001). According to a Tukey test (α = .05), the fracture resistance findings with or without cyclic fatigue loading were as follows, respectively: CEREC VITABLOCKS Mark II (405 N/454 N) was statistically lower than IPS Empress CAD (1169 N/1240 N) and IPS e.max CAD (1378 N/1025 N) (P < .05). The IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD did not differ statistically (P > .05). According to a t test, there was no statistical difference in the fracture resistance with and without cyclic fatigue loading for CEREC VITABLOCS Mark II and IPS Empress CAD (P > .05). For IPS e.max CAD, the fracture resistance without cyclic fatigue loading was statistically superior to that obtained with cyclic fatigue loading (P < .05).
The IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD showed higher fracture resistance compared with CEREC VITABLOCS Mark II. The cyclic fatigue loading negatively influenced only IPS e.max CAD.
The CEREC VITABLOCS Mark II, IPS Empress CAD, and IPS e.max CAD ceramic crowns cemented on solid abutments showed sufficient resistance to withstand normal chewing forces.