Literature DB >> 26505488

Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Bonded to Enamel or Dentin Using Different Resin Cement Types and Film Thicknesses.

Thitithorn Rojpaibool1, Chalermpol Leevailoj1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of cement film thickness, cement type, and substrate (enamel or dentin) on ceramic fracture resistance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred extracted human third molars were polished to obtain 50 enamel and 50 dentin specimens. The specimens were cemented to 1-mm-thick lithium disilicate ceramic plates with different cement film thicknesses (100 and 300 μm) using metal strips as spacers. The cements used were etch-and-rinse (RelyX Ultimate) and self-adhesive (RelyX U200) resin cements. Compressive load was applied on the ceramic plates using a universal testing machine, and fracture loads were recorded in Newtons (N). Statistical analysis was performed by multiple regression (p < 0.05). Representative specimens were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy to control the cement film thickness.
RESULTS: The RelyX Ultimate group with a cement thickness of 100 μm cemented to enamel showed the highest mean fracture load (MFL; 1591 ± 172.59 N). The RelyX Ultimate groups MFLs were significantly higher than the corresponding RelyX U200 groups (p < 0.05), and thinner film cement demonstrated a higher MFL than thicker films (p < 0.05). Bonding to dentin resulted in lower MFL than with enamel (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Higher fracture loads were related to thinner cement film thickness and RelyX Ultimate resin cement. Bonding to dentin resulted in lower fracture loads than bonding to enamel. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Reduced resin film thickness could reduce lithium disilicate restoration fracture. Etch-and-rinse resin cements are recommended for cementing on either enamel or dentin, compared with self-adhesive resin cement, for improved fracture resistance.
© 2015 by the American College of Prosthodontists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lithium disilicate ceramics; cement film thickness; dentin bonding; enamel bonding; fracture resistance; self-adhesive resin cement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26505488     DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthodont        ISSN: 1059-941X            Impact factor:   2.752


  6 in total

1.  Load-bearing capacity of lithium disilicate and ultra-translucent zirconias.

Authors:  Jing Yan; Marina R Kaizer; Yu Zhang
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2018-08-21

2.  Comparison of Mechanical Properties of a Self-Adhesive Composite Cement and a Heated Composite Material.

Authors:  Anastazja Skapska; Zenon Komorek; Mariusz Cierech; Elzbieta Mierzwinska-Nastalska
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.967

3.  Shear bond strength of resin bonded zirconia and lithium disilicate - effect of surface treatment of ceramics and dentin.

Authors:  Mina Aker Sagen; Linda Vos; Jon E Dahl; Hans J Rønold
Journal:  Biomater Investig Dent       Date:  2022-02-16

4.  Surface Treatment Effect on Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement.

Authors:  Siripan Simasetha; Awiruth Klaisiri; Tool Sriamporn; Kraisorn Sappayatosok; Niyom Thamrongananskul
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2021-12-17

5.  Effect of Die Spacer Thickness on the Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Veneers on Maxillary First Premolars.

Authors:  Sherine Mohamed Farag; Mona Mohamed Ghoneim; Rania Reda Afifi
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2021-06-08

6.  Misfit and fracture load of implant-supported monolithic crowns in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate.

Authors:  Rafael Soares Gomes; Caroline Mathias Carvalho de Souza; Edmara Tatiely Pedroso Bergamo; Dimorvan Bordin; Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2017 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.698

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.