Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations.
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan; 28(1):e259-e264.JP

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the fracture resistance of monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic restorations with bilayer zirconia-based restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen ceramic crowns were fabricated on epoxy dies duplicated from a stainless steel master die. They were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5) according to the type of ceramic material used: group I, monolithic lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), group V, monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity), and group B (bilayered zirconia substructure with veneering ceramic). All specimens were cemented on epoxy dies with a self-adhesive resin cement (Rely X Unicem), subjected to a chewing simulator, and then loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine. The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA to compare among the 3 materials. The Bonferroni post hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons when the ANOVA test was significant.

RESULTS

Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity) crowns showed the highest statistically significant (p < 0.05) mean fracture resistance values (1742.9 ± 102.7 N), followed by lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) (1565.2 ± 89.7 N). Bilayered zirconia-based crowns showed the lowest statistically significantly mean fracture resistance values (1267.8 ± 86.1 N).

CONCLUSIONS

Monolithic reinforced glass-ceramics (lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) have better fracture resistance than bilayered zirconia-based ceramics.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The use of monolithic reinforced ceramic restorations (lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) is preferred to bilayered zirconia-based restorations to avoid chipping of the ceramic veneer.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Crowns and Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt.Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29044828

Citation

Hamza, Tamer A., and Rana M. Sherif. "Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations." Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, vol. 28, no. 1, 2019, pp. e259-e264.
Hamza TA, Sherif RM. Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e259-e264.
Hamza, T. A., & Sherif, R. M. (2019). Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations. Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 28(1), e259-e264. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12684
Hamza TA, Sherif RM. Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e259-e264. PubMed PMID: 29044828.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass-Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia-Based Restorations. AU - Hamza,Tamer A, AU - Sherif,Rana M, Y1 - 2017/10/18/ PY - 2017/06/19/accepted PY - 2017/10/19/pubmed PY - 2019/6/4/medline PY - 2017/10/19/entrez KW - Fracture strength KW - lithium disilicate KW - zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate SP - e259 EP - e264 JF - Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists JO - J Prosthodont VL - 28 IS - 1 N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the fracture resistance of monolithic reinforced glass-ceramic restorations with bilayer zirconia-based restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen ceramic crowns were fabricated on epoxy dies duplicated from a stainless steel master die. They were divided into 3 equal groups (n = 5) according to the type of ceramic material used: group I, monolithic lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), group V, monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity), and group B (bilayered zirconia substructure with veneering ceramic). All specimens were cemented on epoxy dies with a self-adhesive resin cement (Rely X Unicem), subjected to a chewing simulator, and then loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine. The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA to compare among the 3 materials. The Bonferroni post hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons when the ANOVA test was significant. RESULTS: Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity) crowns showed the highest statistically significant (p < 0.05) mean fracture resistance values (1742.9 ± 102.7 N), followed by lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) (1565.2 ± 89.7 N). Bilayered zirconia-based crowns showed the lowest statistically significantly mean fracture resistance values (1267.8 ± 86.1 N). CONCLUSIONS: Monolithic reinforced glass-ceramics (lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) have better fracture resistance than bilayered zirconia-based ceramics. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The use of monolithic reinforced ceramic restorations (lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) is preferred to bilayered zirconia-based restorations to avoid chipping of the ceramic veneer. SN - 1532-849X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29044828/Fracture_Resistance_of_Monolithic_Glass_Ceramics_Versus_Bilayered_Zirconia_Based_Restorations_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -