Marginal chipping factor in machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations


Article Sidebar

PDF 209
Published: Mar 30, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2024.6101
Keywords:
Ceramics, Chipping factor, e.max CAD, Veneer, Zirconia
Section
Original Articles
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Main Article Content

Nadia H Hasan
University of Mosul
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5702-3439
Ali Malallah
University of Mosul
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5216-6422
Mohammed Hazim
University of Mosul

Abstract

Background: The marginal edges of the laminate veneer ceramic restorations are very critical areas that play a very determinant role in the success of this type of esthetic restorations.
Aim: To evaluate the marginal chipping factor of laminate veneer restorations prepared from both zirconia lithium disilicate materials.
Materials and methods: Two typodont teeth representing the upper central incisors were used to prepare laminate veneers with an overlapping incisal design. These veneers were fabricated in two thicknesses (0.5 mm and 0.3 mm) using three types of multilayer zirconia materials with varying yttria percentages (3Y, 5Y, and 3Y/5Y) as well as lithium disilicate computer-aided-design (CAD) blocks. The veneers were divided into four groups based on the yttria percentage and further subdivided into two subgroups for the thickness. Top-view images of the veneer margins were captured and imported into the Image Pro Plus software. The average periphery of each veneer margin was 30 mm. The lengths of the chipped margins were measured under a stereomicroscope, and the CF was calculated.
Results: One-way ANOVA suggested significant differences among the ceramics. e.max CAD ceramic veneers exhibited the highest mean CF values (4.72, 5.9), whereas 3Y/5Y zirconia veneers demonstrated the lowest mean CF values (0.74, 1.54) for 0.5 mm and 0.3 mm thicknesses, respectively. Independent t-tests indicated no significant difference in the CF between 0.5 mm and 0.3 mm thicknesses for each ceramic material.
Conclusion: Different ceramic materials exhibited varying levels of marginal chipping, with zirconia ceramics demonstrating lower CF than lithium disilicate ceramics. Reducing the veneer thickness from 0.5 mm to 0.3 mm did not significantly affect the CF.

Article Details


How to Cite
Hasan, N. H., Malallah, A., & Hazim, M. (2024). Marginal chipping factor in machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations. International Journal of Dental Materials, 6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2024.6101
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Nadia H Hasan, University of Mosul

Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Iraq.

Ali Malallah, University of Mosul

Assistant Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Iraq.

Mohammed Hazim, University of Mosul

Assistant Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Iraq.

References

  1. Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Brittleness index of machinable dental materials and its relation to the marginal chipping factor. J Dent 2007;35:897-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.002
  2. Reich S, Gozdowski S, Trentzsch L, Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U. Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs. CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype. Oper Dent 2008;33:644-50. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-162
  3. Andrade JP, Stona D, Bittencourt HR, Borges GA, Burnett LH Júnior, Spohr AM. Effect of Different Computer-aided Design/Computer-aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) Materials and Thicknesses on the Fracture Resistance of Occlusal Veneers. Oper Dent 2018;43:539-48. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-131-L
  4. Hany C, Tymour M. Marginal Chipping of Three Different CAD/CAM Ceramic Veneering Materials As Influenced By Machinability. Egypt Dent J. 2020;66:695-707. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2020.79141
  5. Kang S. Flexural strength and microstructure of two lithium disilicate glass ceramics for CAD / CAM restoration in the dental clinic. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;7658:134-40.
  6. Manziuc MM, Gasparik C, Negucioiu M, Constantiniuc M, Burde A, Vlas I, et al. Optical properties of translucent zirconia: A review of the literature. The EuroBiotech Journal. 2019;3:45-51. https://doi.org/10.2478/ebtj-2019-0005
  7. Teja SS, Teja PH. All-ceramic materials in dentistry. Saint Int Dent J 2015;1:91-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2454-3160.177930
  8. Madfa, Ahmed & Al-Sanabani, Fadhel & Al-Qudami, Nasser & Al-Sanabani, Jabr & Amran, Abdullah. Use of Zirconia in Dentistry: An Overview. Open Biomater J. 2014;5. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876502501405010001
  9. Nistor L, Gr?dinaru M, Rîc? R, et al. Zirconia Use in Dentistry - Manufacturing and Properties. Curr Health Sci J. 2019;45(1):28-35.
  10. Kongkiatkamon S, Rokaya D, Kengtanyakich S, Peampring C. Current classification of zirconia in dentistry: an updated review. Peer J. 2023;11:e15669.
  11. Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. J Dent Res 2018;97:140-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517737483.
  12. Michailova M, Elsayed A, Fabel G, Edelhoff D, Zylla IM, Stawarczyk B. Comparison between novel strength-gradient and color-gradient multilayered zirconia using conventional and high-speed sintering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;111:103977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103977
  13. Saker S, Özcan M. Marginal discrepancy and load to fracture of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers: The effect of preparation design and sintering protocol. Dent Mater J. 2021;40:331-8. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2020-007
  14. Kim MJ, Oh SH, Kim JH, et al. Wear evaluation of the human enamel opposing different Y-TZP dental ceramics and other porcelains. J Dent. 2012;40(11):979-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.004
  15. Giannetopoulos, S.; van Noort, R.; Tsitrou, E. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of ceramic copings with different marginal angles using two different CAD/ CAM systems. J. Dent. 2010, 38, 980–986.
  16. Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Correlation of in vitro fatigue data and in vivo clinical performance of a glassceramic material. Dent Mater 2008;24:39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.01.011
  17. Strelhow SS, Ferrairo BM, Lima FF, Piras FF, Borges AF, Rubo JH, et al. Marginal chipping of lithium disilicate crowns produced by CAD-CAM systems. Dent Mater 2018;34. e118-e119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.08.247
  18. Porto TS, Roperto RC, Teich ST, Faddoul FF, Rizzante FA, Porto-Neto SD, et al. Brittleness index and its relationship with materials mechanical properties: Influence on the machinability of CAD/CAM materials. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e026. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0026
  19. Almarzouki MZ. Chipping, failure load and fatigue resistance of anterior veneers manufactured with CAD/CAM technology. PhD diss., Boston University, 2017.
  20. Schriwer C, Skjold A, Gjerdet NR, Oilo M. Monolithic zirconia dental crowns: internal fit, margin quality, fracture mode and load at fracture. Dent Mater 2017;33(9):1012–20.
  21. Zimmermann M., Valcanaia A., Neiva G., Mehl A., Fasbinder D. Digital evaluation of the fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate crowns with a new three- dimensional approach. Quintessence Int. 2017:9–15.
  22. Chai SY, Bennani V, Aarts JM, Lyons K, Lowe B. Effect of incisal preparation design on load-to-failure of ceramic veneers. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32:424-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12584
  23. Malallah AD, Hasan NH. Thickness and yttria percentage influences the fracture resistance of laminate veneer zirconia restorations. Clin Exp Dent Res 2022;8:1413-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.658
  24. Quinn GD, Giuseppetti AA, Hoffman KH. Chipping fracture resistance of dental CAD/CAM restorative materials: part I--procedures and results. Dent Mater 2014;30:e99-e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.010
  25. Almohammed SN, Alshorman B, Abu-Naba’a LA. Mechanical Properties of Five Esthetic Ceramic Materials Used for Monolithic Restorations: A Comparative In Vitro Study. Ceramics 2023;6:1031-1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ceramics6020061
  26. Øilo M, Quinn GD. Fracture origins in twenty-two dental alumina crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;53:93–103.
  27. Quinn GD, Ives LK, Jahanmir S. Machining cracks in finished ceramics. KEM. 2005;290:1–13.
  28. Karlsen CÅ, Schriwer C, Øilo M. Damage tolerance of six dental zirconias with different translucencies. Biomater Investig Dent. 2020;7(1):126-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1809420
  29. Kastyl J, Chlup, Z, Stastny P, Trunec M, 2020. Machinability and properties of zirconia ceramics prepared by gel casting method. Adv. Appl. Ceram. 119, 252–260.