The One-Year In Vivo Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconium Dioxide Inlays.

Rini Behera,Darshan Devang Divakar,Abdulaziz A Al-Kheraif,Monika Lukomska-Szymanska,Lora Mishra,Naomi Ranjan Singh

doi:10.3390/ma14113102

Rini Behera, Darshan Devang Divakar + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14113102

Copy DOI

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate (LD) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) class II inlay restorations. Thirty healthy individuals who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. The patients were randomly divided into two study groups (n = 15): LD (IPS e.max press) and ZrO2 (Dentcare Zirconia). In the ZrO2 group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were sandblasted and silanized with Monobond N (Ivoclar, Leichsteistein, Germany). In the LD group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid. The ceramic inlays were cemented with self-cure resin cement (Multilink N). Clinical examinations were performed using modified United State Public Health Codes and Criteria (USPHS) after 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. The one-year survival rate was evaluated. In total, one failure was observed in the ZrO2 group. The survival probability after 1 year for the ZrO2 inlays was 93%, and for the LD inlays was 100%, which was statistically insignificant. The differences between both groups for most USPHS criteria (except for colour match) were statistically insignificant. Within the imitations of the present study, the lithium disilicate- and zirconia dioxide-based inlays exhibited comparable clinical performances. However, the colour and translucency match was superior for the lithium disilicate restorations.

Highlights

The prevalence of dental caries is estimated by the WHO to be over 90% [1]
Lithium disilicate (LD) glass ceramic is excellent for highly aesthetic restorations providing good mechanical properties
In the LD group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid (IPS Ceramic Kit, Ivoclar, Leichsteistein, Germany) for 20 s, cleaned with water and dried

Summary

Introduction

The prevalence of dental caries is estimated by the WHO to be over 90% [1]. The extension of caries is the prime dominance factor in choice of reconstruction method. Composite restorations, crowns, inlays or onlays are recommended to reconstruct extensive class II MOD cavities [2]. In these cases, the establishment of occlusal anatomy, proximal contact and the contour, finishing and polishing of indirect restorations are far superior to direct reconstructions [3]. Ceramic and zirconium dioxide-based reconstructions provide enhanced strength and aesthetics [3,4]. Both materials offer the opportunity to maintain the tooth structure while providing the mechanical benefits of modern adhesive technology. Lithium disilicate (LD) glass ceramic is excellent for highly aesthetic restorations providing good mechanical properties. LD ceramic, the strongest and the toughest of the glass-ceramics available, exhibits moderate flexural strength (360–440 MPa) [5] and fracture toughness (2.5–3 MPa m1/2) [6], yet provides excellent translucency and shade matching properties [7,8]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion