STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Fracture is a clinical failure modality for ceramic veneers. Whether design of tooth preparation can affect the strength of ceramic veneers remains controversial. PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers, with 4 tooth preparation designs, that were bonded on extracted human maxillary central incisors. Identical parameters were also measured on unrestored intact teeth for comparison. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Fifty maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into 5 equal groups. Each group was assigned a different tooth preparation design: (1) no incisal reduction, (2) 2 mm incisal reduction without palatal chamfer (butt joint), (3) 1 mm incisal reduction and 1 mm height palatal chamfer, (4) 4 mm incisal reduction and 1 mm height palatal chamfer, and (5) unrestored (control). Forty teeth were prepared to accommodate ceramic veneers of equal thickness and incisocervical length. Stone dies were fabricated and veneers made from IPS Empress ceramic. Ceramic veneers were bonded and all teeth mounted in phenolic rings with epoxy resin. Fracture loads were recorded with a mechanical testing machine. RESULTS:Mean fracture loads (SD) in kgf were as follows: group 1, 23.7 (6.11); group 2, 27.4 (9.63); group 3, 16.4 (3.44); group 4, 19.2 (6.18); and group 5, 31.0 (10.38). Modes of failure were also analyzed for both ceramic veneers and teeth. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons revealed 3 significant subsets: groups 1-2-5, groups 4-1, and groups 3-4 (P <.05). Groups 1 and 2 had no ceramic veneer fractures; group 3 had 3 ceramic veneer fractures, and group 4 had 6 ceramic veneer fractures. CONCLUSION: Groups 1 and 2 recorded the greatest fracture loads that were comparable to an unrestored control.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Fracture is a clinical failure modality for ceramic veneers. Whether design of tooth preparation can affect the strength of ceramic veneers remains controversial. PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers, with 4 tooth preparation designs, that were bonded on extracted human maxillary central incisors. Identical parameters were also measured on unrestored intact teeth for comparison. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into 5 equal groups. Each group was assigned a different tooth preparation design: (1) no incisal reduction, (2) 2 mm incisal reduction without palatal chamfer (butt joint), (3) 1 mm incisal reduction and 1 mm height palatal chamfer, (4) 4 mm incisal reduction and 1 mm height palatal chamfer, and (5) unrestored (control). Forty teeth were prepared to accommodate ceramic veneers of equal thickness and incisocervical length. Stone dies were fabricated and veneers made from IPS Empress ceramic. Ceramic veneers were bonded and all teeth mounted in phenolic rings with epoxy resin. Fracture loads were recorded with a mechanical testing machine. RESULTS: Mean fracture loads (SD) in kgf were as follows: group 1, 23.7 (6.11); group 2, 27.4 (9.63); group 3, 16.4 (3.44); group 4, 19.2 (6.18); and group 5, 31.0 (10.38). Modes of failure were also analyzed for both ceramic veneers and teeth. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons revealed 3 significant subsets: groups 1-2-5, groups 4-1, and groups 3-4 (P <.05). Groups 1 and 2 had no ceramic veneer fractures; group 3 had 3 ceramic veneer fractures, and group 4 had 6 ceramic veneer fractures. CONCLUSION: Groups 1 and 2 recorded the greatest fracture loads that were comparable to an unrestored control.
Authors: Matthias J Roggendorf; Bianka Kunzi; Johannes Ebert; Hubert C Roggendorf; Roland Frankenberger; Sven M Reich Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.573