OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the biaxial flexural strength of three core ceramic materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups of 10 disc-shaped specimens (16 mm diameter x 1.2 mm thickness - in accordance with ISO-6872, 1995) were made from the following ceramic materials: Turkom-Cera Fused Alumina [(Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn Bhd, Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia)], In-Ceram (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) and Vitadur-N (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany), which were sintered according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The specimens were subjected to biaxial flexural strength test in an universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The definitive fracture load was recorded for each specimen and the biaxial flexural strength was calculated from an equation in accordance with ISO-6872.
RESULTS: The mean biaxial flexural strength values were: Turkom-Cera: 506.8 ± 87.01 MPa, In-Ceram: 347.4 ± 28.83 MPa and Vitadur-N: 128.7 ± 12.72 MPa. The results were analyzed by the Levene's test and Dunnett's T3 post-hoc test (SPSS software V11.5.0 for Windows, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA ) at a preset significance level of 5% because of unequal group variances (P<0.001). There was statistically significant difference between the three core ceramics (P<0.05). Turkom-Cera showed the highest biaxial flexural strength, followed by In-Ceram and Vitadur-N.
CONCLUSIONS: Turkom-Cera core had significantly higher flexural strength than In-Ceram and Vitadur-N ceramic core materials.
METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.
SIGNIFICANCE: This chewing simulation test showed that Tetric EvoCeram composites exhibited a rougher surface when opposing lithium disilicate ceramic compared to opposing zirconia ceramic.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.
METHODS: Six master dies were duplicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth using nonprecious metal alloy (Wiron 99). Thirty copings (Procera AllCeram) of 0.6-mm thickness were manufactured. Three types of luting media were used: zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and dual-cured composite resin cement (Panavia F). Ten copings were cemented with each type. Two master dies were used for each group, and each of them was used to lute five copings. All groups were cemented according to manufacturer's instructions and received a static load of 5 kg during cementation. After 24 hours of distilled water storage at 37 degrees C, the copings were vertically compressed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed significant differences in the load at fracture among the three groups (p < 0.001). The fracture strength results showed that the mean fracture strength of zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and resin luting cement (Panavia F) were 1091.9 N, 784.8 N, and 1953.5 N, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Different luting agents have an influence on the fracture resistance of Procera AllCeram copings.