Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1020-1028
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1757910
Original Article

Substrate Rigidity Effect on CAD/CAM Restorations at Different Thicknesses

César Rogério Pucci 
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil
,
Ana Paula Valente Pinho Mafetano 
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil
,
Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges 
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil
,
Guilherme Schmitt de Andrade 
2   Department of Dentistry, Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná (UNIOESTE), Cascavel, Brazil
,
Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva 
3   Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Cornelis J. Kleverlaan 
3   Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
João Paulo Mendes Tribst 
4   Department of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This article evaluated the effect of substrates rigidities on the post-fatigue fracture resistance of adhesively cemented simplified restorations in lithium disilicate glass ceramic.

Methods Precrystalized computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic blocks were processed into disc-shaped specimens (n = 10, Ø = 10 mm), mimicking a simplified restoration at two thicknesses (0.5 and 1.0 mm). Thereafter, the discs were cemented onto different base substrates (dentin analogue [control], dentin analogue with a central core build-up of resin composite [RC], or glass ionomer cement [GIC]). The specimens were subjected to mechanical cycling in a chewing simulator (100 N, 1 × 106 cycles, 4 Hz) and then subjected to thermocycling aging (10,000 cycles, 5/37/55°C, 30 seconds). After the fatigue protocol, the specimens were loaded until failure (N) in a universal testing machine. Finite element analysis calculated the first principal stress at the center of the adhesive interface.

Results The results showed that “restoration thickness,” “type of substrate,” and their interaction were statistically significant (one-way analysis of variance; p < 0.001). Regardless the restoration thickness a higher fracture load was observed for specimens cemented to dentin analogue. Among the base materials, RC build-up presented the highest fracture load and lower stress magnitude for both restoration thicknesses in comparison with GIC build-up. The 0.5-mm restoration showed higher stress peak and lower fracture load when submitted to the compressive test.

Conclusion More flexible base material reduces the fracture load and increases the stress magnitude of adhesively cemented lithium disilicate restorations regardless the ceramic thickness. Therefore, more rigid substrates are suggested to be used to prevent restoration mechanical failures.

Keywords

adhesion - cyclic loading - dental ceramics - finite element analysis - monolithic restorations.

Authors' Contributions

C.R.P.: Conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, and final approval.


A.P.V.P.M.: Conception and design, acquisition of data, drafting the article, and final approval.


A.L.S.B.: Conception and design, acquisition of data, drafting the article, and final approval.


G.S.d.A.: Acquisition of data, drafting the article, revising the article, and final approval.


A.M.d.O.D.P.: Analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, revising the article, and final approval.


C.J.K.: Analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, revising the article, and final approval.


J.P.M.T.: Conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, revising the article, and final approval.




Publication History

Article published online:
13 December 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Liu C, Eser A, Albrecht T. et al. Strength characterization and lifetime prediction of dental ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2021; 37 (01) 94-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Borges ALS, Costa AKF, Dal Piva AMO, Pinto ABA, Tribst JPM. Effect of three different veneering techniques on the stress distribution and in vitro fatigue behavior of core-veneer all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2021; 15 (03) 188-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ausiello P, Franciosa P, Martorelli M, Watts DC. Numerical fatigue 3D-FE modeling of indirect composite-restored posterior teeth. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (05) 423-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Feitosa FA, Tribst JPM, Araújo RM, Pucci CR. Surface etching and silane heating using Er: YAG and Nd: YAG lasers in dental ceramic luted to human dentin. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2021; 18: 1408-1416
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Matuda AGN, Silveira MPM, Andrade GS. et al. computer aided design modelling and finite element analysis of premolar proximal cavities restored with resin composites. Materials (Basel) 2021; 14 (09) 2366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Srimaneepong V, Heboyan A, Zafar MS. et al. Fixed prosthetic restorations and periodontal health: a narrative review. J Funct Biomater 2022; 13 (01) 15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gonzaga CC, Cesar PF, Miranda Jr WG, Yoshimura HN. Slow crack growth and reliability of dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (04) 394-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Harada K, Raigrodski AJ, Chung K-H, Flinn BD, Dogan S, Mancl LA. A comparative evaluation of the translucency of zirconias and lithium disilicate for monolithic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116 (02) 257-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Benalcázar Jalkh EB, Anami LC, Bonfante EA, Bottino MA. Minimal tooth preparation for posterior monolithic ceramic crowns: effect on the mechanical behavior, reliability and translucency. Dent Mater 2021; 37 (03) e140-e150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Machry RV, Borges ALS, Pereira GKR, Kleverlaan CJ, Venturini AB, Valandro LF. Influence of the foundation substrate on the fatigue behavior of bonded glass, zirconia polycrystals, and polymer infiltrated ceramic simplified CAD-CAM restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 117: 104391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 De Andrade GS, Tribst JPM, Orozco EI. et al. Influence of different post-endodontic restorations on the fatigue survival and biomechanical behavior of central incisors. Am J Dent 2020; 33 (05) 227-234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Campaner LM, Ribeiro AO, Tribst JPM. et al. Loading stress distribution in posterior teeth restored by different core materials under fixed zirconia partial denture: a 3D-FEA study. Am J Dent 2021; 34 (03) 157-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Soares PM, Cadore-Rodrigues AC, Souto Borges AL, Valandro LF, Pereira GKR, Rippe MP. Load-bearing capacity under fatigue and FEA analysis of simplified ceramic restorations supported by Peek or zirconia polycrystals as foundation substrate for implant purposes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 123: 104760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ausiello P, Dal Piva AMO, Borges ALS. et al. Effect of shrinking and no shrinking dentine and enamel replacing materials in posterior restoration: a 3D-FEA Study. Appl Sci (Basel) 2021; 11: 2215
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sari T, Ural C, Yüzbasioglu E, Duran I, Cengiz S, Kavut I. Color match of a feldspathic ceramic CAD-CAM material for ultrathin laminate veneers as a function of substrate shade, restoration color, and thickness. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (03) 455-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Albelasy E, Hamama HH, Tsoi JKH, Mahmoud SH. Influence of material type, thickness and storage on fracture resistance of CAD/CAM occlusal veneers. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 119: 104485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Lopes GC. et al. Biaxial flexural strength and Weilbull characteristics of adhesively luted hybrid and reinforced CAD/CAM materials to dentin: effect of self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching. J Adhes Sci Technol 2020; 34: 1253-1268
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 de Jager N, Münker TJAG, Guilardi LF, Jansen VJ, Sportel YGE, Kleverlaan CJ. The relation between impact strength and flexural strength of dental materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 122: 104658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Tartaglia GM, Colombo A, Serrao G. Size and shape of the human first permanent molar: a Fourier analysis of the occlusal and equatorial outlines. Am J Phys Anthropol 1999; 108 (03) 281-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27 (02) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Borges ALS, Dal Piva Ade O, Moecke SE, de Morais RC, Tribst JPM. Polymerization shrinkage, hygroscopic expansion, elastic modulus and degree of conversion of different composites for dental application. J Compos Sci 2021; 5: 322
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ma L, Guess PC, Zhang Y. Load-bearing properties of minimal-invasive monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia occlusal onlays: finite element and theoretical analyses. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (07) 742-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Naumann M, Kiessling S, Seemann R. Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a nationwide survey of dentists in Germany. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96 (05) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ritzberger C, Apel E, Höland W. et al. Properties and clinical application of three types of dental glass-ceramics and ceramics for CAD-CAM technologies. Materials (Basel) 2010; 3: 3700-3713
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Anderson RE, Maia HP, Giannini M, Magne P. Influence of adhesive core buildup designs on the resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent 2016; 41 (01) 76-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Field C, Stone S, Whitworth J. et al. Core build-ups and post placement. In: Wassell R, Nohl F, Steele J, Walls A. eds. Extra-Coronal Restorations. BDJ Clinician's Guides. Springer; Cham: 2019: 295-327
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Gopikrishna V, Abarajithan M, Krithikadatta J, Kandaswamy D. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to GIC using three different adhesives. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (04) 467-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dos Santos VH, Griza S, de Moraes RR, Faria-E-Silva AL. Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to composite submitted to different surface pretreatments. Restor Dent Endod 2014; 39 (01) 12-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wolfart S, Eschbach S, Scherrer S, Kern M. Clinical outcome of three-unit lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: up to 8 years results. Dent Mater 2009; 25 (09) e63-e71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 de Kok P, Pereira GKR, Fraga S, de Jager N, Venturini AB, Kleverlaan CJ. The effect of internal roughness and bonding on the fracture resistance and structural reliability of lithium disilicate ceramic. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (12) 1416-1425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Magne P, Stanley K, Schlichting LH. Modeling of ultrathin occlusal veneers. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (07) 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sasse M, Krummel A, Klosa K, Kern M. Influence of restoration thickness and dental bonding surface on the fracture resistance of full-coverage occlusal veneers made from lithium disilicate ceramic. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (08) 907-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81 (06) 652-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Holberg C, Rudzki-Janson I, Wichelhaus A, Winterhalder P. Ceramic inlays: is the inlay thickness an important factor influencing the fracture risk?. J Dent 2013; 41 (07) 628-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Yan J, Kaizer MR, Zhang Y. Load-bearing capacity of lithium disilicate and ultra-translucent zirconias. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 88: 170-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Amaral FLB, Colucci V, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SA. Assessment of in vitro methods used to promote adhesive interface degradation: a critical review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19 (06) 340-353 , discussion 354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Yousief SA, Galal RM, Alsharief HMA. et al Comparison of two types of preparation for laminate veneer with three types of allceramic materials. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 120-126
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sá TCM, de Carvalho MFF, de Sá JCM, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Yamauti M. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth with different thicknesses of porcelain laminate veneers: an 8-year follow-up clinical evaluation. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 590-593
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Al-Ali AMAH, Khalifa N, Hadj-Hamou A, Sheela S, El-Damanhoury HM. Effect of thickness and bonding technique on fatigue and fracture resistance of feldspathic ultra-thin laminate veneers. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (02) 431-438
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Fabianelli A. et al. Mechanical behavior of bulk direct composite versus block composite and lithium disilicate indirect Class II restorations by CAD-FEM modeling. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (06) 690-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Giannini M, Magne P. Fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM complete crowns with a simplified cementation process. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111 (04) 310-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Durairaj RB, Sivasaravanan S, Sharma DK, Ramachandran S, Heboyan A. Investigations on mechanical properties of titanium reinforced glass ionomer cement (GiC)—Ceramic composites suitable for dental implant applications. Dig J Nanomater Biostruct 2021; 16: 161-167
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar