Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses.
J Prosthodont. 2017 Feb; 26(2):141-149.JP

Abstract

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of cement film thickness, cement type, and substrate (enamel or dentin) on ceramic fracture resistance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred extracted human third molars were polished to obtain 50 enamel and 50 dentin specimens. The specimens were cemented to 1-mm-thick lithium disilicate ceramic plates with different cement film thicknesses (100 and 300 μm) using metal strips as spacers. The cements used were etch-and-rinse (RelyX Ultimate) and self-adhesive (RelyX U200) resin cements. Compressive load was applied on the ceramic plates using a universal testing machine, and fracture loads were recorded in Newtons (N). Statistical analysis was performed by multiple regression (p < 0.05). Representative specimens were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy to control the cement film thickness.

RESULTS

The RelyX Ultimate group with a cement thickness of 100 μm cemented to enamel showed the highest mean fracture load (MFL; 1591 ± 172.59 N). The RelyX Ultimate groups MFLs were significantly higher than the corresponding RelyX U200 groups (p < 0.05), and thinner film cement demonstrated a higher MFL than thicker films (p < 0.05). Bonding to dentin resulted in lower MFL than with enamel (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher fracture loads were related to thinner cement film thickness and RelyX Ultimate resin cement. Bonding to dentin resulted in lower fracture loads than bonding to enamel.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Reduced resin film thickness could reduce lithium disilicate restoration fracture. Etch-and-rinse resin cements are recommended for cementing on either enamel or dentin, compared with self-adhesive resin cement, for improved fracture resistance.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.Esthetic Restorative and Implant Dentistry International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

26505488

Citation

Rojpaibool, Thitithorn, and Chalermpol Leevailoj. "Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses." Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, vol. 26, no. 2, 2017, pp. 141-149.
Rojpaibool T, Leevailoj C. Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(2):141-149.
Rojpaibool, T., & Leevailoj, C. (2017). Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses. Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 26(2), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12372
Rojpaibool T, Leevailoj C. Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(2):141-149. PubMed PMID: 26505488.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses. AU - Rojpaibool,Thitithorn, AU - Leevailoj,Chalermpol, Y1 - 2015/10/27/ PY - 2015/05/07/accepted PY - 2015/10/28/pubmed PY - 2018/3/28/medline PY - 2015/10/28/entrez KW - Lithium disilicate ceramics KW - cement film thickness KW - dentin bonding KW - enamel bonding KW - fracture resistance KW - self-adhesive resin cement SP - 141 EP - 149 JF - Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists JO - J Prosthodont VL - 26 IS - 2 N2 - PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of cement film thickness, cement type, and substrate (enamel or dentin) on ceramic fracture resistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred extracted human third molars were polished to obtain 50 enamel and 50 dentin specimens. The specimens were cemented to 1-mm-thick lithium disilicate ceramic plates with different cement film thicknesses (100 and 300 μm) using metal strips as spacers. The cements used were etch-and-rinse (RelyX Ultimate) and self-adhesive (RelyX U200) resin cements. Compressive load was applied on the ceramic plates using a universal testing machine, and fracture loads were recorded in Newtons (N). Statistical analysis was performed by multiple regression (p < 0.05). Representative specimens were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy to control the cement film thickness. RESULTS: The RelyX Ultimate group with a cement thickness of 100 μm cemented to enamel showed the highest mean fracture load (MFL; 1591 ± 172.59 N). The RelyX Ultimate groups MFLs were significantly higher than the corresponding RelyX U200 groups (p < 0.05), and thinner film cement demonstrated a higher MFL than thicker films (p < 0.05). Bonding to dentin resulted in lower MFL than with enamel (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher fracture loads were related to thinner cement film thickness and RelyX Ultimate resin cement. Bonding to dentin resulted in lower fracture loads than bonding to enamel. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Reduced resin film thickness could reduce lithium disilicate restoration fracture. Etch-and-rinse resin cements are recommended for cementing on either enamel or dentin, compared with self-adhesive resin cement, for improved fracture resistance. SN - 1532-849X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26505488/Fracture_Resistance_of_Lithium_Disilicate_Ceramics_Bonded_to_Enamel_or_Dentin_Using_Different_Resin_Cement_Types_and_Film_Thicknesses_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -