Effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Cement spacer is essential for compensating deformation of zirconia restoration after sintering shrinkage, allowing proper seating and better fracture resistance of the restoration. Studies assessing the effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of zirconia frameworks are missing in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cement spacer settings on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks. METHODS: Sixty standardized stainless-steel master dies were manufactured with 2 prepared abutments for fabricating 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks. The frameworks were assigned into 6 groups (n = 10) according to cement spacer setting (30 µm, 50 µm, and 80 µm) as follows: 3-unit frameworks; 3u-30, 3u-50, 3u-80, and 4-unit frameworks; 4u-30, 4u-50, and 4u-80. The frameworks were assessed for fit accuracy with the replica method. The specimens were cemented to their corresponding dies, and the fracture strength was measured in a universal testing machine. The Weibull parameters were calculated for the study groups and fractured specimens were inspected for failure mode. Two-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey test for pairwise comparison between study groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The cement spacer had a significant effect on both fit accuracy and fracture strength for 3-unit and 4-unit frameworks. The 50 µm spacer had significantly better fit accuracy followed by 80 µm, and 30 µm spacers. Both 50 µm and 80 µm spacers had similar fracture strength, and both had significantly better strength than 30 µm spacer. CONCLUSIONS: For both 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks, 50 µm cement spacer can be recommended over 30 µm and 80 µm spacers for significantly better fit accuracy and adequate fracture strength.

Effect of Die Spacer Thickness on the Microshear Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Veneers.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength of ceramic veneers with digital die spacer settings at 20, 40, and 100 µm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen milled lithium disilicate microdiscs (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were divided into three groups (n = 6) according to their digital die spacer settings: group A = 20 µm, group B = 40 µm, and group C = 100 µm. Six randomly selected sound maxillary premolars received three microdiscs each. Each microdisc was 1 mm in diameter and 1 mm in height. The buccal surfaces of the premolars were prepared with a 0.5 mm depth in enamel. After cementation, the specimens were thermocycled for 2,500 cycles between 5 and 55°C. Microshear bond strength testing was performed using a universal testing machine until bonding failure. Failure modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, and chi-square test with a 5% alpha error and 80% study power. RESULTS: The mean microshear bond strength values were calculated in MPa for group A = 31.91 ± 12.41, group B = 29.58 ± 5.03, and group C = 13.85 ± 4.12. One-way ANOVA (p ≤ 0.05) showed a statistically significant difference in microshear bond strength among the three groups. Tukey's post hoc test showed significant differences between groups A and C (p=0.004) and between groups B and C (p=0.011). The failure modes were presented as cohesive, adhesive, and mixed failures. Chi-square test indicated that the failure mode distribution was not significantly different among the three groups (p=0.970). CONCLUSION: Higher digital die spacer settings decrease the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate veneers.

Effect of Die Spacer Thickness on the Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Veneers on Maxillary First Premolars.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with digital die spacer settings at 20 µm, 40 µm, and 100 µm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen sound maxillary first premolars were divided into three groups (n=6) according to their digital die spacer settings: group A=20 µm, group B=40 µm, group C=100 µm. Each tooth was prepared to a depth of 0.5 mm to receive lithium disilicate veneers (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). All groups were thermocycled (2500 cycles at 5-55°C) and subjected to fracture resistance test using a universal testing machine until failure. Failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: The values (N) for group A=1181.34±301.33, group B=1014.29±291.12, and group C=841.89±244.59. One-way ANOVA showed no statistical difference among the three groups (p=0.145). However, chi-square test showed that a significant difference was present in the modes of failure (p=0.009). Tukey's post hoc test indicated that the failure modes of group A were statistically different from those of group C, showing 83.3% adhesive failure for group A compared to 0% adhesive failures in group C. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered as statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Digital die spacer thickness did not influence the mean fracture resistance values of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate veneers. However, the way the failure occurred differed significantly at various die spacer thicknesses.