Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations Fabricated Using a Standardization Method

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance, fracture failure pattern, and fractography of four types of chairside computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restoration materials in teeth and titanium abutments fabricated using a standardization method. An artificial mandibular left first premolar prepared for all-ceramic crown restoration was scanned. Forty extracted mandibular molars and cylindrical titanium specimens were milled into a standardized shape. A total of eighty CAD/CAM restoration blocks were milled into a crown and twenty pieces of each lithium disilicate (LS), polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network (PICN), resin nano ceramic (RNC), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) materials were used. Crowns were bonded to abutments, and all specimens underwent thermal cycling treatment for 10,000 cycles. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine and fracture failure patterns were analyzed using optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Statistical differences were analyzed using appropriate ANOVA, Tukey HSD post hoc tests, and independent sample t-tests (α = 0.05). The results indicated that, in both teeth abutments and titanium abutments, the fracture resistances showed significantly the highest values in LS and the second highest in ZLS (p < 0.05). The fracture resistances based on teeth abutments and titanium abutments were significantly different in all the CAD/CAM restoration materials (p < 0.05). There are statistically significant correlations between the types of materials and the types of abutments (p < 0.05). Each of the different materials showed different fracture failure patterns, and there was no noticeable difference in fractographic analysis. Lithium disilicates and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicates exhibited statistically high fracture resistance, indicating their suitability as restoration materials for natural teeth or implant abutments. There were no distinct differences in the fracture pattern based on the restoration and abutment materials showed that the fracture initiated at the groove where the ball indenter was toughed and propagated toward the axial wall.