STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Preparation designs and ceramic thicknesses are key factors for the long-term success of minimally invasive premolar partial coverage restorations. However, only limited information is presently available on this topic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and failure modes of ceramic premolar partial coverage restorations with different preparation designs and ceramic thicknesses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Caries-free human premolars (n=144) were divided into 9 groups. Palatal onlay preparation comprised reduction of the palatal cusp by 2 mm (Palatal Onlay Standard), 1 mm (Palatal-Onlay-Thin), or 0.5 mm (Palatal Onlay Ultrathin). Complete-coverage onlay preparation additionally included the buccal cusp (Occlusal Onlay Standard; Occlusal Onlay Thin; Occlusal Onlay Ultrathin). Labial surface preparations with chamfer reductions of 0.8 mm (Complete-Veneer-Standard), 0.6 mm (Complete-Veneer-Thin), and 0.4 mm (Complete Veneer Ultrathin) were implemented for complete veneer restorations. Restorations were fabricated from a pressable lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS-e.max-Press) and cemented adhesively (Syntac-Classic/Variolink-II). All specimens were subjected to cyclic mechanical loading (F=49 N, 1.2 million cycles) and simultaneous thermocycling (5°C to 55°C) in a mouth-motion simulator. After fatigue, restorations were exposed to single-load-to-failure. Two-way ANOVA was used to identify statistical differences. Pair-wise differences were calculated and P-values were adjusted by the Tukey-Kramer method (α=.05). RESULTS: All specimens survived fatigue. Mean (SD) load to failure values (N) were as follows: 837 (320/Palatal-Onlay-Standard), 1055 (369/Palatal-Onlay-Thin), 1192 (342/Palatal-Onlay-Ultrathin), 963 (405/Occlusal-Onlay-Standard), 1108 (340/Occlusal-Onlay-Thin), 997 (331/Occlusal-Onlay-Ultrathin), 1361 (333/Complete-Veneer-Standard), 1087 (251/Complete-Veneer-Thin), 883 (311/Complete-Veneer-Ultrathin). Palatal-onlay restorations revealed a significantly higher fracture resistance with ultrathin thicknesses than with standard thicknesses (P=.015). Onlay restorations were not affected by thickness variations. Fracture loads of standard complete veneers were significantly higher than thin (P=.03) and ultrathin (P<.001) restorations. CONCLUSIONS: In this in vitro study, the reduction of preparation depth to 1.00 and 0.5 mm did not impair fracture resistance of pressable lithium-disilicate ceramic onlay restorations but resulted in lower failure loads in complete veneer restorations on premolars.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Preparation designs and ceramic thicknesses are key factors for the long-term success of minimally invasive premolar partial coverage restorations. However, only limited information is presently available on this topic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and failure modes of ceramic premolar partial coverage restorations with different preparation designs and ceramic thicknesses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Caries-free human premolars (n=144) were divided into 9 groups. Palatal onlay preparation comprised reduction of the palatal cusp by 2 mm (Palatal Onlay Standard), 1 mm (Palatal-Onlay-Thin), or 0.5 mm (Palatal Onlay Ultrathin). Complete-coverage onlay preparation additionally included the buccal cusp (Occlusal Onlay Standard; Occlusal Onlay Thin; Occlusal Onlay Ultrathin). Labial surface preparations with chamfer reductions of 0.8 mm (Complete-Veneer-Standard), 0.6 mm (Complete-Veneer-Thin), and 0.4 mm (Complete Veneer Ultrathin) were implemented for complete veneer restorations. Restorations were fabricated from a pressable lithiumdisilicate ceramic (IPS-e.max-Press) and cemented adhesively (Syntac-Classic/Variolink-II). All specimens were subjected to cyclic mechanical loading (F=49 N, 1.2 million cycles) and simultaneous thermocycling (5°C to 55°C) in a mouth-motion simulator. After fatigue, restorations were exposed to single-load-to-failure. Two-way ANOVA was used to identify statistical differences. Pair-wise differences were calculated and P-values were adjusted by the Tukey-Kramer method (α=.05). RESULTS: All specimens survived fatigue. Mean (SD) load to failure values (N) were as follows: 837 (320/Palatal-Onlay-Standard), 1055 (369/Palatal-Onlay-Thin), 1192 (342/Palatal-Onlay-Ultrathin), 963 (405/Occlusal-Onlay-Standard), 1108 (340/Occlusal-Onlay-Thin), 997 (331/Occlusal-Onlay-Ultrathin), 1361 (333/Complete-Veneer-Standard), 1087 (251/Complete-Veneer-Thin), 883 (311/Complete-Veneer-Ultrathin). Palatal-onlay restorations revealed a significantly higher fracture resistance with ultrathin thicknesses than with standard thicknesses (P=.015). Onlay restorations were not affected by thickness variations. Fracture loads of standard complete veneers were significantly higher than thin (P=.03) and ultrathin (P<.001) restorations. CONCLUSIONS: In this in vitro study, the reduction of preparation depth to 1.00 and 0.5 mm did not impair fracture resistance of pressable lithium-disilicate ceramic onlay restorations but resulted in lower failure loads in complete veneer restorations on premolars.
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