Renan Belli1, Eva Geinzer2, Anna Muschweck2, Anselm Petschelt2, Ulrich Lohbauer2. 1. Laboratory for Biomaterials Research, Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Glueckstrasse 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: rbelli@dent.uni-erlangen.de. 2. Laboratory for Biomaterials Research, Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Glueckstrasse 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: For posterior partial restorations an overlap of indication exists where either ceramic or resin-based composite materials can be successfully applied. The aim of this study was to compare the fatigue resistance of modern dental ceramic materials versus dental resin composites in order to address such conflicts. METHODS: Bar specimens of five ceramic materials and resin composites were produced according to ISO 4049 and stored for 14 days in distilled water at 37°C. The following ceramic materials were selected for testing: a high-strength zirconium dioxide (e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar), a machinable lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar), a pressable lithium disilicate ceramic (e-max Press, Ivoclar), a fluorapatite-based glass-ceramic (e.max Ceram, Ivoclar), and a machinable color-graded feldspathic porcelain (Trilux Forte, Vita). The composite materials selected were: an indirect machinable composite (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE) and four direct composites with varying filler nature (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray; GrandioSO, Voco; Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar-Vivadent; and CeramX Duo, Dentsply). Fifteen specimens were tested in water for initial strength (σin) in 4-point bending. Using the same test set-up, the residual flexural fatigue strength (σff) was determined using the staircase approach after 10(4) cycles at 0.5 Hz (n=25). Weibull parameters σ0 and m were calculated for the σin specimens, whereas the σff and strength loss in percentage were obtained from the fatigue experiment. RESULTS: The zirconium oxide ceramic showed the highest σin and σff (768 and 440 MPa, respectively). Although both lithium disilicate ceramics were similar in the static test, the pressable version showed a significantly higher fatigue resistance after cyclic loading. Both the fluorapatite-based and the feldspathic porcelain showed equivalent initial and cyclic fatigue properties. From the composites, the highest filled direct material Clearfil Majesty Posterior showed superior fatigue performance. From all materials, e.max Press and Clearfil Majesty Posterior showed the lowest strength loss (29.6% and 32%, respectively), whereas the other materials lost between 41% and 62% of their flexural strength after cyclic loading. CONCLUSIONS: Dental ceramics and resin composite materials show equivalent fatigue strength degradation at loads around 0.5σin values. Apart from the zirconium oxide and the lithium disilicate ceramics, resin composites generally showed better σff after 10,000 cycles than the fluorapatite glass-ceramic and the feldspathic porcelain. Resin composite restorations may be used as an equivalent alternative to glass-rich-ceramic inlays regarding mechanical performance.
OBJECTIVES: For posterior partial restorations an overlap of indication exists where either ceramic or resin-based composite materials can be successfully applied. The aim of this study was to compare the fatigue resistance of modern dental ceramic materials versus dental resin composites in order to address such conflicts. METHODS: Bar specimens of five ceramic materials and resin composites were produced according to ISO 4049 and stored for 14 days in distilled water at 37°C. The following ceramic materials were selected for testing: a high-strength zirconium dioxide (e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar), a machinable lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar), a pressable lithium disilicate ceramic (e-max Press, Ivoclar), a fluorapatite-based glass-ceramic (e.max Ceram, Ivoclar), and a machinable color-graded feldspathic porcelain (Trilux Forte, Vita). The composite materials selected were: an indirect machinable composite (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE) and four direct composites with varying filler nature (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray; GrandioSO, Voco; Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar-Vivadent; and CeramX Duo, Dentsply). Fifteen specimens were tested in water for initial strength (σin) in 4-point bending. Using the same test set-up, the residual flexural fatigue strength (σff) was determined using the staircase approach after 10(4) cycles at 0.5 Hz (n=25). Weibull parameters σ0 and m were calculated for the σin specimens, whereas the σff and strength loss in percentage were obtained from the fatigue experiment. RESULTS: The zirconium oxide ceramic showed the highest σin and σff (768 and 440 MPa, respectively). Although both lithium disilicate ceramics were similar in the static test, the pressable version showed a significantly higher fatigue resistance after cyclic loading. Both the fluorapatite-based and the feldspathic porcelain showed equivalent initial and cyclic fatigue properties. From the composites, the highest filled direct material Clearfil Majesty Posterior showed superior fatigue performance. From all materials, e.max Press and Clearfil Majesty Posterior showed the lowest strength loss (29.6% and 32%, respectively), whereas the other materials lost between 41% and 62% of their flexural strength after cyclic loading. CONCLUSIONS: Dental ceramics and resin composite materials show equivalent fatigue strength degradation at loads around 0.5σin values. Apart from the zirconium oxide and the lithium disilicate ceramics, resin composites generally showed better σff after 10,000 cycles than the fluorapatite glass-ceramic and the feldspathic porcelain. Resin composite restorations may be used as an equivalent alternative to glass-rich-ceramic inlays regarding mechanical performance.
Authors: Zihou Zhang; Dylan Beitzel; Mustafa Mutluay; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley; Dwayne Arola Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Bashair A Alsaud; Maher S Hajjaj; Ahmad I Masoud; Ensanya A Abou Neel; Dalia A Abuelenain; Amal I Linjawi Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Fernando Zarone; Maria Irene Di Mauro; Pietro Ausiello; Gennaro Ruggiero; Roberto Sorrentino Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 2.757