Parissa Nassary Zadeh1, Nina Lümkemann2, Beatrice Sener3, Marlis Eichberger4, Bogna Stawarczyk5. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Hospital of the University of Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Materials Engineer, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Hospital of the University of Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Medical Technologist Assistant, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontics and Cardiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Certified Dental Technician, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Hospital of the University of Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Head of Dental Materials Unit, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Hospital of the University of Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The development of zirconia materials with optimized properties has been rapid, and studies comparing the mechanical and optical properties of recently introduced zirconia with lithium disilicate materials are limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the mechanical and optical properties of cubic/tetragonal zirconia materials with those of a lithium disilicate ceramic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Specimens were fabricated from 6 different noncolored zirconia materials: Ceramill Zolid FX (CZ), CopraSmile (CS), DD cubeX2 (DD), NOVAZIR MaxT (NZ), priti multidisc ZrO₂ (PD), and StarCeram Z-Smile (SC), and 1 lithium disilicate ceramic as a control, IPS e.max Press LT A2 (CG). Four-point flexural strength (N=105/n=15) and fracture toughness using the single-edge V-notched beam (N=105/n=15) were examined according to International Organization for Standardization standard 6872:2015. Translucency (N=70/n=10) was evaluated with an ultraviolet spectrophotometer. Grain size (N=6/n=1) of zirconia was investigated by using scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, multivariate analysis, 1-way analysis of variance, followed by the post hoc Scheffé test and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, and Weibull analysis, using the maximum likelihood estimation method at 95% confidence level (α=.05). RESULTS: Zirconia materials showed higher mechanical and lower optical properties than CG (P<.001). No differences were observed among the zirconia materials with respect to flexural strength (P=.259) or fracture toughness (P=.408). CG and CS showed significantly higher Weibull modulus than SC and PD. The lowest translucency values were measured for NZ and SC, followed by CS, DD, and PD (P<.001). CZ showed the highest translucency values (P<.001). The lowest grain sizes were found for NZ, DD, and SC; the largest were shown for CS (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cubic/tetragonal zirconia showed better mechanical properties than lithium disilicate ceramic. However, the optical properties and the reliability of zirconia are lower than those of lithium disilicate ceramic.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The development of zirconia materials with optimized properties has been rapid, and studies comparing the mechanical and optical properties of recently introduced zirconia with lithium disilicate materials are limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the mechanical and optical properties of cubic/tetragonal zirconia materials with those of a lithium disilicate ceramic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Specimens were fabricated from 6 different noncolored zirconia materials: Ceramill Zolid FX (CZ), CopraSmile (CS), DD cubeX2 (DD), NOVAZIR MaxT (NZ), priti multidisc ZrO₂ (PD), and StarCeram Z-Smile (SC), and 1 lithium disilicate ceramic as a control, IPS e.max Press LT A2 (CG). Four-point flexural strength (N=105/n=15) and fracture toughness using the single-edge V-notched beam (N=105/n=15) were examined according to International Organization for Standardization standard 6872:2015. Translucency (N=70/n=10) was evaluated with an ultraviolet spectrophotometer. Grain size (N=6/n=1) of zirconia was investigated by using scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, multivariate analysis, 1-way analysis of variance, followed by the post hoc Scheffé test and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, and Weibull analysis, using the maximum likelihood estimation method at 95% confidence level (α=.05). RESULTS:Zirconia materials showed higher mechanical and lower optical properties than CG (P<.001). No differences were observed among the zirconia materials with respect to flexural strength (P=.259) or fracture toughness (P=.408). CG and CS showed significantly higher Weibull modulus than SC and PD. The lowest translucency values were measured for NZ and SC, followed by CS, DD, and PD (P<.001). CZ showed the highest translucency values (P<.001). The lowest grain sizes were found for NZ, DD, and SC; the largest were shown for CS (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cubic/tetragonal zirconia showed better mechanical properties than lithium disilicate ceramic. However, the optical properties and the reliability of zirconia are lower than those of lithium disilicate ceramic.
Authors: Bobby Aditya Darmawan; John G Fisher; Doan Thanh Trung; Kumaresan Sakthiabirami; Sang-Won Park Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.623