Nadin Al-Haj Husain1, Tobias Dürr2, Mutlu Özcan3, Urs Brägger4, Tim Joda5. 1. Specialization Candidate, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: nalhaj88@gmail.com. 2. Master student, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Professor and Head, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Professor, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Professor, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies investigating the mechanical stability of lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic that do not require sintering after milling compared with other computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the flexural strength of CAD-CAM zirconia, lithium disilicate, and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramics with and without fatigue conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Specimens (N=90, n=15) (12×4×3 mm) from the following CAD-CAM materials were prepared and polished: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD); lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (N!ce); and zirconium dioxide ceramic (IPS e.max ZirCAD). All specimens were divided into 2 subgroups: immediate testing without aging and simulation of aging by using a mastication simulator for 1 200 000 cycles (5 °C-55 °C). Thereafter, flexural strength testing was performed by using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) on nonaged and aged specimens. The data were evaluated by using nonparametric 2-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon rank post hoc tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Both the material type and aging significantly affected the results (P<.001). The interaction was not significant (P>.05). Under nonaged conditions, zirconium dioxide ceramic (1136 ±162 MPa) showed significantly higher mean ±standard deviation flexural strength (P<.001) than lithium disilicate (304 ±34 MPa) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (202 ±17 MPa). The glass-ceramic groups were also significantly different from each other (P<.001). After aging, zirconium dioxide (1087.9 ±185.3 MPa) also presented significantly higher mean ±standard deviation flexural strength (P<.001) than lithium disilicate (259 ±62 MPa) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (172 ±11 MPa) (P<.001). Aging significantly decreased the flexural strength of lithium disilicate (14.6%) (P=.03) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (14.5%) (P=.01) but had minimal effect on the zirconium dioxide ceramic (4.3%) (P=.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among the tested CAD-CAM materials, the mechanical performance of lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic was comparable with that of lithium disilicate and considerably lower than that of zirconia. Aging decreased the flexural strength of both lithium disilicate and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies investigating the mechanical stability of lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic that do not require sintering after milling compared with other computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the flexural strength of CAD-CAM zirconia, lithium disilicate, and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramics with and without fatigue conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Specimens (N=90, n=15) (12×4×3 mm) from the following CAD-CAM materials were prepared and polished: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD); lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (N!ce); and zirconium dioxide ceramic (IPS e.max ZirCAD). All specimens were divided into 2 subgroups: immediate testing without aging and simulation of aging by using a mastication simulator for 1 200 000 cycles (5 °C-55 °C). Thereafter, flexural strength testing was performed by using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) on nonaged and aged specimens. The data were evaluated by using nonparametric 2-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon rank post hoc tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Both the material type and aging significantly affected the results (P<.001). The interaction was not significant (P>.05). Under nonaged conditions, zirconium dioxide ceramic (1136 ±162 MPa) showed significantly higher mean ±standard deviation flexural strength (P<.001) than lithium disilicate (304 ±34 MPa) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (202 ±17 MPa). The glass-ceramic groups were also significantly different from each other (P<.001). After aging, zirconium dioxide (1087.9 ±185.3 MPa) also presented significantly higher mean ±standard deviation flexural strength (P<.001) than lithium disilicate (259 ±62 MPa) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (172 ±11 MPa) (P<.001). Aging significantly decreased the flexural strength of lithium disilicate (14.6%) (P=.03) and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic (14.5%) (P=.01) but had minimal effect on the zirconium dioxide ceramic (4.3%) (P=.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among the tested CAD-CAM materials, the mechanical performance of lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic was comparable with that of lithium disilicate and considerably lower than that of zirconia. Aging decreased the flexural strength of both lithium disilicate and lithium disilicate-strengthened aluminosilicate glass-ceramic.
Authors: Sebastian Hinz; Tobias Bensel; Wolfgang Bömicke; Anders Henningsen; Judith Rudolph; Arne F Boeckler Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 3.623