ABSTRACT
Introduction The main reason veneered zirconia restorations fail is due to porcelain veneer chipping. This chipping usually starts from wear marks on the chewing surface. As a result, small cracks under the contact area can grow into larger ones across the veneer layer. The veneer ceramic layer is more vulnerable to fractures because it has lower toughness and slightly lower stiffness compared to the base framework material. Thus, even when there's significant chipping, the main framework material usually stays protected with a thin layer of veneer ceramic on top. The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the edge strength of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns with that of Indirect Composite Layered Zirconia Crowns without aging. Materials and methods This research involved creating 12 hand-layered all-ceramic crowns and 12 indirect composite layered zirconia crowns. The sample size was determined using a G*Power calculation (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany). The zirconia frameworks (Upcera HT White; UPCERA Dental America Inc., Cerritos, CA, US) were milled and sintered following the manufacturer's instructions. For the all-ceramic group, veneering porcelain (e.max Ceram; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was hand-applied. In contrast, the indirect composite group utilized Ceramage (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan). An Instron 4501 universal testing machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA) was employed for the edge chipping tests, and a Vickers indenter (Shanghai Toyo Diamond Tools Co., LTD, Shanghai, China) was used to apply the load. The mean value for edge chipping was analyzed using an unpaired t-test with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The normality of the data was confirmed, and statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results Monolithic Zirconia Crowns (Group 1) require significantly more force (mean: 405 N) to induce an edge chip compared to Indirect Composite Layered Zirconia Crowns (Group 2) (mean: 300 N). The 95% confidence interval (83.43261 N to 109.90072 N) confirms the statistical significance of this difference. Conclusion In conclusion, when evaluating restorative materials based on both esthetic and functional criteria, monolithic zirconia stands out due to its combination of strength, esthetic potential, biocompatibility, and versatility.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Managing tooth shade is a significant challenge in aesthetic dentistry, especially for anterior restorations. Accurate shade assessment, combined with tailored treatment strategies and effective communication, is crucial. To improve the precision and reliability of aesthetic dental treatments, new shade-matching technologies have emerged. Current clinical methods for determining tooth shade utilize both visual assessments and instrumental techniques. The current study aimed to assess and compare the reliability and accuracy of four digital methods of tooth shade matching. Materials and methods This study utilized a 3D-printed resin upper arch model with tooth preparation done on tooth 11. An intraoral scanner was employed to scan and design the tooth, followed by the fabrication of 30 zirconia crowns using computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM). The assessment of shade matching involved four digital photometric methodologies (group 1: twin flash + digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera (DT), group 2: ring flash + DSLR camera (DR), group 3: smartphone camera (SMART), group 4: intraoral scanner (IOS)) with Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIEL*a*b*) values determined through Adobe Photoshop transformation. Accuracy (ΔE) was calculated and a specific shade using Vitablocs Mark II 3D-Master served as the standard. CIEL*a*b* data (where L = lightness, a and b = chromaticity coordinates) from four cohorts were analyzed in SPSS 26.0 for reliability, with intraclass correlation. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Spearman's correlation assessed reliability, while a one-sample t-test assessed accuracy, comparing values to clinical thresholds (p<0.05). Results The intraclass correlation revealed noteworthy variations in the L*, a*, and b* values, spanning from 0.730 to 0.994, 0.885 to 0.992, and 0.881 to 0.997, respectively. Intraoral scanners demonstrated high accuracy (ΔE = 5.8), while the SMART method showed the lowest precision (ΔE = 12.09). Twin flash with DSLR (TF+DSLR) and ring flash with DSLR (RF+DSLR) displayed comparable precision, with ΔE values of 10.90 and 10.97 respectively. Conclusion The smartphone exhibited the least precision, displaying notable discrepancies in all CIEL*a*b* metrics when compared to the manufacturer-specified shades. Conversely, the intraoral scanner demonstrated higher accuracy and reliability compared to the other groups, with no discernible variation in any of the CIEL*a*b* values from the manufacturer's standard.
