Coskun Yildiz1, Burcin Akoglu Vanlıoğlu2, Buket Evren2, Altay Uludamar3, Yasemin Kulak-Ozkan4. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Associate Professor, Private Practice, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate fracture resistance in lithium disilicate onlays fabricated with IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD systems and luted with different adhesive cements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty maxillary first molars were prepared using a mesio-occluso-disto-lingual onlay cavity model. Ten onlays from each group were cemented using etch-and-rinse adhesives and high-viscosity composite resin cement, and 10 were cemented with self-adhesive, dual-curing universal resin cement. Fracture resistance was measured. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between resin cements (p < 0.05) and between materials (p < 0.05), but the interaction of these variables did not produce a significant difference. The fracture resistance of pressable ceramics was significantly higher than that of CAD/CAM onlays (p < 0.05), and Syntac Variolink was significantly higher than that of Multilink Sprint (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All groups showed clinically acceptable fracture strength results. According to the study, both the onlay fabrication system and adhesive cements can be a viable treatment option.
PURPOSE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate fracture resistance in lithium disilicate onlays fabricated with IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD systems and luted with different adhesive cements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty maxillary first molars were prepared using a mesio-occluso-disto-lingual onlay cavity model. Ten onlays from each group were cemented using etch-and-rinse adhesives and high-viscosity composite resin cement, and 10 were cemented with self-adhesive, dual-curing universal resin cement. Fracture resistance was measured. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between resin cements (p < 0.05) and between materials (p < 0.05), but the interaction of these variables did not produce a significant difference. The fracture resistance of pressable ceramics was significantly higher than that of CAD/CAM onlays (p < 0.05), and Syntac Variolink was significantly higher than that of Multilink Sprint (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All groups showed clinically acceptable fracture strength results. According to the study, both the onlay fabrication system and adhesive cements can be a viable treatment option.
Authors: Georgina García-Engra; Lucia Fernandez-Estevan; Javier Casas-Terrón; Antonio Fons-Font; Pablo Castelo-Baz; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Juan Luis Román-Rodriguez Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.430