| Literature DB >> 35683309 |
Mustafa Borga Donmez1,2, Emin Orkun Olcay3, Münir Demirel4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the load-to-failure resistance and optical properties of nano-lithium disilicate (NLD) with lithium disilicate (LDS) and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in different aging processes. Thirty crowns were milled from NLD, LDS, and ZLS (n = 10). All crowns were subjected to thermomechanical aging and loaded until catastrophic failure. Ten specimens from each material were prepared in two different thicknesses (0.7 mm and 1.5 mm, n = 5), and color coordinates were measured before and after coffee thermocycling. Color differences (ΔE00) and relative translucency parameter (RTP) were calculated. Data were analyzed by using ANOVA and Bonferroni-corrected t-tests (α = 0.05). ZLS had the highest load-to-failure resistance (p ≤ 0.002), while the difference between LDS and NLD was nonsignificant (p = 0.776). The interaction between material type and thickness affected ΔE00 (p < 0.001). Among the 0.7 mm thick specimens, ZLS had the lowest ΔE00 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, 1.5 mm thick ZLS had lower ΔE00 than that of 1.5 mm thick LDS (p = 0.036). Other than ZLS (p = 0.078), 0.7 mm thick specimens had higher ΔE00 (p < 0.001). The interaction between material type, thickness, and thermocycling affected RTP (p < 0.001). Thinner specimens presented higher RTP (p < 0.001). NLD and LDS had higher RTP than ZLS (p ≤ 0.036). However, 0.7 mm thick specimens had similar RTP after coffee thermocycling (p ≥ 0.265). Coffee thermocycling reduced the RTP values of 0.7 mm thick NLD (p = 0.032) and LDS (p = 0.008). NLD may endure the occlusal forces present in the posterior region. However, long-term coffee consumption may impair the esthetics of restorations particularly when thin NLD is used.Entities:
Keywords: color stability; load-to-failure resistance; nano-lithium disilicate; relative translucency parameter
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683309 PMCID: PMC9182075 DOI: 10.3390/ma15114011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
List of CAD-CAM materials used in this study.
| Material | Classification | Manufacturer |
|---|---|---|
| Amber Mill | Nano-lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, NLD | Hass, |
| IPS e.max CAD | Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, LDS | Ivoclar Vivadent, |
| Vita Suprinity | Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic, ZLS | Vita Zahnfabrick, |
| BRILLIANT Crios | Reinforced composite resin | Coltène AG, |
Figure 1Reference cast.
Crystallization parameters of the materials used in the present study.
| B (°C) | S (min) | t1/t2 (°C/min) | T1/T2 (°C) | H1/H2 (min) | Vac. 1 (°C)/Vac. 2 (°C) | L (°C) | tL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amber Mill | 400 °C | 3 min | 60 °C/min | 815 °C | 15 min | 550/815 °C | 690 °C | 0 |
| IPS e.max CAD | 403 °C | 6 min | 90/34 °C/min | 830/850 °C | 10 s–7 min | 550–830/830–850 °C | 710 °C | 0 |
| Vita Suprinity | 400 °C | 4 min | 55 °C/min | 840 °C | 8 min | 410/839 °C | 680 °C | 0 |
Figure 2Box plot graph of load-to-failure resistance of all materials; different uppercase letters present significant differences among groups, p < 0.05.
ANOVA results of the color parameters.
| Color Change | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material | 1.912 | 2 | 0.956 | 74.726 | <0.001 |
| Thickness | 2.958 | 1 | 2.958 | 231.235 | <0.001 |
| Material × Thickness | 0.671 | 2 | 0.336 | 26.246 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Material | 710.535 | 2 | 355.268 | 89.110 | <0.001 |
| Thickness | 3061.061 | 1 | 3061.061 | 767.793 | <0.001 |
| Condition | 67.628 | 1 | 67.628 | 16.963 | <0.001 |
| Material × Thickness | 246.614 | 2 | 123.307 | 30.929 | <0.001 |
| Material × Condition | 28.675 | 2 | 14.337 | 3.596 | 0.035 |
| Thickness × Condition | 24.219 | 1 | 24.219 | 6.075 | 0.017 |
| Material × Thickness × Condition | 34.709 | 2 | 17.354 | 4.353 | 0.018 |
R-squared = 0.948 (adjusted R-squared = 0.937); R-squared = 0.956 (adjusted R-squared = 0.946).
Figure 3Means and 95% confidence limits of ΔE00 values for each material–thickness pair. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among materials with the same thickness, while uppercase letters indicate significant differences between different thicknesses of the same material (p < 0.05). Horizontal lines represent the perceptibility threshold (0.8 units) and the acceptability threshold (1.8 units).
Comparison of p values for RTP values of clinically relevant pairs at the baseline and after coffee.
| Pairs | Baseline | After Coffee Thermocycling |
|---|---|---|
| 0.7 NLD-0.7 LDS | 0.946 | 0.265 |
| 0.7 NLD-0.7 ZLS | 0.004 | 0.892 |
| 0.7 NLD-1.5 NLD | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 0.7 LDS-0.7 ZLS | 0.036 | 0.85 |
| 0.7 LDS-1.5 LDS | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 0.7 ZLS-1.5 ZLS | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 1.5 NLD-1.5 LDS | >0.05 | 0.517 |
| 1.5 NLD-1.5 ZLS | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 1.5 LDS-1.5 ZLS | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Coffee thermocycling. p < 0.05 indicates significant differences between groups: NLD, nano-lithium disilicate; LDS, lithium disilicate; ZLS, zirconia reinforced lithium silicate.
Figure 4Mean RTP values and 95% confidence limits for each material–thickness pair: B, baseline; A, after coffee thermocycling.
Figure 5SEM images of tested materials after 5% hydrofluoric acid etching: (A) NLD; (B) LDS; (C) ZLS.