ABSTRACT
Dental ceramics are susceptible to slow, progressive crack growth after cyclic loading. The purpose of this study was to investigate the progressive patterns of cracks in two different types of CAD/CAM ceramic materials used with three different partial posterior indirect restoration (PPIR) designs and to determine the materials' failure risk using a fatigue test. Standard initial cracks were formed in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files prepared for three different PPIRs. The materials chosen were monolithic lithium disilicate (LS) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICNs). The extended finite element method (XFEM) was applied, and the fatigue performance was examined by applying a 600 N axial load. The cracks propagated the most in onlay restorations, where the highest displacement was observed. In contrast, the most successful results were observed in overlay restorations. Overlay restorations also showed better fatigue performance. LS materials exhibited more successful results than PICN materials. LS materials, which can be used in PPIRs, yield better results compared to PICN materials. While inlay restorations demonstrated relatively successful results, overlay and onlay restorations can be specified as the most and the least successful PPIR types, respectively.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different cavity designs and cement types on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses (IRFDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four study models consisting of a second premolar, a missing first molar, and a second molar were used for the different cavity designs. Four different inlay cavity designs were prepared: DO-MO (disto-occlusal-mesio-occlusal cavity), MOD-MOD (mesio-occlusodistal-mesio-occlusodistal cavity), WDO-WMO (DO-MO with additional wings), and WMOD-WMOD (MOD-MOD with additional wings). A total of 64 epoxy resin models were produced and scanned individually. IRFDPs were then fabricated from monolithic zirconia using CAD/ CAM software. The bonding surface of the IRFDPs was airborne particle abraded (50-µm alumina/2 MPa), then cemented onto the epoxy resin models using two cementation protocols (n = 8 per group): (1) P = cemented with Panavia SA Cement Plus Automix; and (2) Z/C = cemented with MDP-containing primer (Z-Prime Plus) combined with Calibra Universal resin cement. All IRFDPs were fatigued through thermal aging (6,000 cycles/5°C to 55°C) and chewing simulations (600,000 cycles × 50-N load, 2.1 Hz). All IRFDPs were then subjected to a fracture resistance test using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.2 mm/minute. Data were statistically analyzed using one- and two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons test (P = .001). RESULTS: The mean fracture load (N) of the designs were as follows: WMODWMOD = 1,111.1; WDO-WMO = 1,057.4; MOD-MOD = 725.6; DO-MO = 682.7. According to two-way ANOVA, the differences among the cavity designs were statistically significant (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The cavity design of IRFDPs affected the fracture resistance. However, the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia IRFDPs with any cavity design was enough to withstand expected posterior chewing forces.
