Search

This study investigated the impact of luting procedure and restoration thicknesses on the flexural strength of CAD/CAM restorations. Traditional luting agents have been questioned in favor of pre-heated resin composites or flowable composites. 400 disc-shaped restorations (lithium disilicate [IPS e.max CAD] or resin composite [Tetric CAD, Ivoclar]) were cemented onto dentin analog discs using different procedures (n = 20): dual-curing resin cement (Panavia V5), light-curing resin cement (Panavia Veneer LC), pre-heated resin composite (Clearfil™ AP-X) with or without pre-heated restoration, and high-filled flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty™ Flow). The biaxial flexural strength was calculated. There were significant effects of material, thickness, and luting procedure on flexural strength (p < 0.001). Resin composite specimens exhibited lower flexural strength (90 MPa) compared to lithium disilicate specimens (571 MPa), with thicker restorations (338 MPa) being stronger than thinner ones (323 MPa). Light-curing cement showed the highest strength (408.8 MPa)A, followed by dual-curing cement (362 MPa)B, pre-heated cement with pre-heated composite (318 MPa)C, pre-heated composite (304 MPa)C, and flowable resin composite (259 MPa)D. The light-curing cement yielded similar results to the pre-heated resin composite associated or not with the pre-heated crown for the thicker lithium disilicate specimens, whereas for the thinner lithium disilicate specimens all luting procedures performed similarly. Thin resin composite discs showed higher flexural strength when luted with light-curing cement, whereas the luting procedure had less influence for the thicker restorations. Luting procedures impact the flexural strength of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate and resin composite restorations. Pre-heated resin composite, with or without pre-heated restoration, can replace dual-curing cement. Nevertheless, light-curing cement is superior for resin composite and 1.5 mm lithium disilicate restorations. Different luting procedures significantly impact the flexural strength of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate and resin composite restorations, with light-curing cement demonstrating superior performance for specific thicknesses. Pre-heated resin composites, either with or without pre-heated restorations, offer a viable alternative to conventional dual-curing cement for bonding indirect restorations, presenting potential clinical advantages. Restoration thickness plays a crucial role in the mechanical response of restorations, with thinner resin composite restorations benefiting from dual- or light-curing, while thicker ones are less sensitive to luting procedure variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the mechanical behavior and risk of failure of three CAD-CAM crowns repaired with different resin composites through a three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis. Three-dimensional models of different cusp-repaired (conventional nanohybrid, bulk-fill, and flowable resin composites) crowns made of zirconia, lithium disilicate, and CAD-CAM resin composite were designed, fixed at the cervical level, and loaded in 100 N at the working cusps, including the repaired one. The models were analyzed to determine the Maximum Principal and Maximum Shear stresses (MPa). Complementary, an in vitro shear bond strength test (n = 10) was performed to calculate the risk of failure for each experimental group. The stress distribution among the models was similar when considering the same restorative material. The crown material affected the stress concentration, which was higher for the ceramic models (±9 MPa for shear stress; ±3 MPa for tensile stress) than for the CAD-CAM composite (±7 MPa for shear stress; ±2 MPa for tensile stress). The shear bond strength was higher for the repaired CAD-CAM resin composite (±17 MPa) when compared to the ceramics (below 12 MPa for all groups), while the repair materials showed similar behavior for each substrate. The stress distribution is more homogenous for repaired resin composite crowns, and a flowable direct resin composite seems suitable to repair ceramic crowns with less risk of failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Professional and amateur athletes might have veneer restorations. The aim of this study was to investigate the protective effect of mouthguards on veneered anterior restorations. Methods: A nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed to simulate conditions during an impact with or without a custom‐made mouthguard. Using a computer‐aided design (CAD) software, a slice of a human maxilla was designed containing an upper right central incisor. The model was composed of mucosa, cortical bone, trabecular bone, periodontal ligament, dentin, enamel, and pulp tissue. The enamel was prepared (feather design), restored with an indirect veneer (1.0 mm thickness), and duplicated to simulate both conditions with or without a mouthguard (4 mm thickness). Both models were subdivided into finite elements using the computer‐aided engineering (CAE) software. Frictionless contacts were used, and an impact was simulated in which a rigid sphere hit the model at 1 m s−1. Fixation was defined at the base of the bone. The elastic modulus of the veneer was assessed by using five different restorative materials (resin composite, hybrid ceramic, zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate, lithium disilicate, and zirconia). Von Mises stress, minimal principal stress, and maximum principal stress (in MPa) were obtained and plotted for visual comparison. Results: Von‐Mises results showed higher stress concentrations in the veneer's cervical labial region for models without a mouthguard. Observing the quantitative results for each model, the highest compressive (709 MPa) and tensile (58 MPa) stresses occurred in the situation without a mouthguard with a zirconia veneer, while the lowest occurred in resin composite veneer with a mouthguard (8 and 5 MPa). The mouthguard was able to reduce the stresses in the tooth structure and it also reduced the risk of fracture in all conditions. Conclusions: Mouthguards were beneficial in reducing the effects of dental trauma regardless of the restorative material used to manufacture the indirect veneer, since they act by dampening the generated stresses during the trauma event. Equal impact stresses on a mouthguard will lead to higher stresses in veneered teeth with more rigid restorative materials leading to a less protective effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]