Monolithic and bi-layer CAD/CAM lithium–disilicate versus metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses: Comparison of fracture loads and failure modes after fatigue

Abstract

The authors analyzed the effect of fatigue on the survival rate and fracture load of monolithic and bi-layer CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate posterior three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in comparison to the metal-ceramic gold standard. The authors divided 96 human premolars and molars into three equal groups. Lithium-disilicate ceramic (IPS-e.max-CAD) was milled with the CEREC-3-system in full-anatomic FDP dimensions (monolithic: M-LiCAD) or as framework (Bi-layer: BL-LiCAD) with subsequent hand-layer veneering. Metal-ceramic FDPs (MC) served as control. Single-load-to-failure tests were performed before and after mouth-motion fatigue. No fracture failures occurred during fatigue. Median fracture loads in [N], before and after fatigue were, respectively, as follows: M-LiCAD, 1,298/1,900; BL-LiCAD, 817/699; MC, 1,966/1,818. M-LiCAD and MC FPDs revealed comparable fracture loads and were both significantly higher than BL-LiCAD. M-LiCAD and BL-LiCAD both failed from core/veneer bulk fracture within the connector area. MC failures were limited to ceramic veneer fractures exposing the metal core. Fatigue had no significant effect on any group. Posterior monolithic CAD/CAM fabricated lithium-disilicate FPDs were shown to be fracture resistant with failure load results comparable to the metal-ceramic gold standard. Clinical investigations are needed to confirm these promising laboratory results. Monolithic CAD/CAM fabricated lithium-disilicate FDPs appeared to be a reliable treatment alternative for the posterior load-bearing area, whereas FDPs in bi-layer configuration were susceptible to low load fracture failure.