Disilicate Groups Research Articles

Fracture resistance of cement-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns: Effect of material used for two-piece abutments.

This study compared the fracture strength of single lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns fabricated on two-piece abutments with various materials: ceramic-reinforced PEEK, zirconia, and lithium disilicate. Thirty-six implants were embedded in acrylic cylinders. A two-piece abutment and a crown were designed following a pre-operation scan for a maxillary left central incisor. The designed crown was used to fabricate 36 lithium disilicate crowns. The designed abutment was used to manufacture 36 abutments from 3 materials, 12 each: (A) zirconia; (B) lithium disilicate; and (C) ceramic-reinforced PEEK. Abutments were surface treated and bonded on the titanium base abutments with resin cement. Then, lithium disilicate crowns were bonded on the assigned abutments. Specimens were then subjected to dynamic loading for 1,200,000 cycles. The fracture strength (N) of the assembly was assessed using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparison tests was used to evaluate the effect of abutment material on the fracture strength of single implant-supported restorations at a significance of .05. The average fracture strength for the groups with zirconia, PEEK, and lithium disilicate two-piece abutments were 1362N ± 218N, 1235N ± 115N, and 1472N ± 171N, respectively. There was a significant (p < 0.05) difference in fracture strength among the groups. The lithium disilicate group had significantly higher fracture strength (p = 0.0058) than the group with PEEK; however, there was no significant (p > 0.05) difference between the other groups. Two-piece abutments restored with lithium disilicate crowns investigated in the study have the potential to withstand the average physiological occlusal forces in the anterior region.

The fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with zirconia crowns, lithium disilicate or resin based ceramic endocrowns.

Endocrown in pediatric dentistry was rooted in the fundamental principles of preserving healthy dental tissues, leveraging contemporary adhesive methodologies. This research aimed on assessing and comparing the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars when rehabilitated with zirconia crowns and two distinct types of endocrowns, namely E-Max and Brilliant Crios. The study involved thirty, anonymized, freshly extracted second primary molars that underwent pulpotomy. These teeth were then evenly divided into three groups, each consisting of ten specimens: the zirconia crown, the E-Max endocrown, and the Brilliant Crios endocrown groups. Post-pulpotomy, the teeth were prepared for their respective restorations. Subsequent to this preparation, the zirconia crowns, E-Max endocrowns, and Brilliant Crios endocrowns were secured. To evaluate the fracture resistance using a computer-controlled testing machine (Instron), a progressively increasing load was applied to each group until fracture occurred. The gathered data were then analyzed for outliers and subjected to normality testing using the Shapiro-Wilk and/or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, with a significance threshold set at 0.05. There was no statistically significant difference in fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars among lithium disilicate (E-Max) group (mean=1367.59N), Brilliant Crios group (mean=1349.73N) and zirconia group (mean=1240.82N). Endocrowns can be considered a promising restoration for pulpotomized primary molars.

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

BackgroundIn-vitro data from a clinically well-known lithium disilicate ceramic reference was used to assess the expected performance of resin-based materials in implant dentistry. The purpose of the study was to compare the bond strength and marginal adaptation of nano-ceramic hybrid composite crowns cemented to stock cement-retained abutments to lithium disilicate crowns.MethodsTwenty abutment analogs were embedded into auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks. The blocks were divided into 2 groups according to the restorative crown material. The 2 groups were divided as follows: Resin nano-ceramic group and lithium disilicate group. Abutment analogs in both groups were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the restorations were designed, manufactured, and cemented with resin cement over the corresponding group. All samples were tested for marginal adaptation and bond strength after storage for 24 hours at 37 °C in 100% humidity. Data were collected, tabulated, and statistically analysed using the appropriate tests. Normality was checked using Shapiro Wilk test and Q-Q plots. Data were normally distributed. Variables were presented using mean, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and standard deviation in addition to median and Inter Quartile Range (IQR). Differences between groups regarding debonding forces was assessed using independent t test. Two Way ANOVA was performed to assess the effect of material and bonding on marginal gap. All tests were two tailed and p value was set at < 0.05.ResultsMarginal gap and debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of material used (P < .05). Resin nano-ceramic crowns presented lower marginal gap values before (20.80 ± 8.87 μm) and after (52.11 ± 22.92 μm) bonding than lithium disilicate crowns. The debonding force value for resin nano-ceramic crowns (284.30 ± 26.44 N) was significantly higher than that for lithium disilicate crowns (253.30 ± 33.26 N). Adhesive failure mode was detected in all the specimens in both groups.ConclusionsThe type of material used for implant-supported cement-retained crowns had a statistically significant effect on marginal adaptation and bond strength. Resin nano-ceramic implant-supported cement-retained crowns had better marginal adaptation and higher bond strength than those manufactured using lithium disilicate.

Er:YAG laser debonding of zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations

Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) restorations of different formulations are being used increasingly in monolithic form for a range of clinical applications. Using rotary instruments to remove such restorations for any purpose is challenging, but they can be removed conservatively with erbium lasers. However, studies on how a laser penetrates different zirconias to break the cement bond between the tooth surface and the zirconia are lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the time required for an erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser to remove different types of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns. Forty extracted premolar teeth were prepared, scanned, designed, and milled to fabricate 40 computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) crowns, which were assigned to 4 groups (n=10): 3mol% Y-TZP, 4mol% Y-TZP, 5mol% Y-TZP, and lithium disilicate as a control. All crowns were bonded to the teeth with a self-adhesive resin cement (Panavia SA Cement Universal). Each specimen was irradiated with an Er:YAG laser with the following parameters: 300mJ, 15Hz, 5.0W, and a 50-microsecond pulse duration (supershort pulse mode). The irradiation time required for crowns to be retrieved successfully was recorded for each specimen. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and the Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test (α=.05). The intaglio surfaces of the restorations were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The mean ±standard deviation times in minutes needed for crown debonding were 12.46 ±4.17 for the 3mol% Y-TZP group, 10.30 ±3.33 for the 4mol% Y-TZP group, 4.03 ±1.62 for the 5mol% Y-TZP group, and 2.08 ±0.92 for the lithium disilicate group. A statistically significant difference (P<.05) in the debonding time was found for all investigated groups, expect between the 3mol% and 4mol% Y-TZP groups and between the 5mol% Y-TZP and lithium disilicate groups. SEM analysis of the ceramic surfaces showed no visual damage associated with Er:YAG laser irradiation. Zirconia crown retrieval time with the Er:YAG laser was influenced by the yttria content of the zirconia, with decreasing retrieval time with increasing yttria content. Er:YAG laser debonding of zirconia crowns is a noninvasive, efficient, and rapid approach to the removal of crowns and could be applied in clinical practice.

Retention of hybrid-abutment-crowns with offset implant placement: influence of Crown materials and Ti-base height

BackgroundThe purpose of the current study was to assess the impact of three esthetic CAD/CAM material, titanium base height and their interaction on the retention strength of a hybrid-abutment-crown.MethodsA total of 42 hybrid-abutment crowns with identical external geometries were designed in CAD software to fit two different Ti-Base abutment heights (n = 42/abutment height): either short (S) with 4 mm (n = 21) or long (L) 7 mm (n = 21) height. Each main group was divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7), according to esthetic crown material, Zirconia (Z), Lithium disilicate (L) and Hybrid ceramic (V). A universal primer and an adhesive resin cement were used for bonding according to the manufacturer instructions. Artificial aging in form of water storage (30 days), chewing simulation (50,000-cycles, 49 N, 1.67 Hz) and thermal cyclic (5000 cycles at 5–55 °C) were applied, specimens were pulled-out under tension load in (N) using a universal testing machine. Two and one-way ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.ResultsLong lithium disilicate (LL) group showed the highest retention (738.7 ± 178.5) followed by short lithium disilicate (LS) group (688.6 ± 169.9). Meanwhile, short zirconia (ZS) showed the lowest retention strength (231.1 ± 86.9).ConclusionCAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate hybrid-abutment-crown can be used instead of conventional crowns over implant abutment. Etchable ceramics are recommended as a material of choice for CAD/CAM fabricated hybrid-abutment-crowns instead of zirconia in terms of retention durability.

Silesiaite, ideally Ca2Fe3+Sn(Si2O7)(Si2O6OH), a new species in the kristiansenite group: crystal chemistry and structure of holotype silesiaite from Szklarska Poręba, Poland, and Sc-free silesiaite from Häiviäntien, Finland

AbstractTwo silesiaite crystals, one from Szklarska Poręba, Poland (type locality), and the other from Häiviäntien, Finland, were studied with electron-probe microanalysis, Raman spectroscopy and single-crystal X-ray diffraction. The crystals have the following compositions normalised to 13 O2– + 1 (OH)– anions: Ca2.001(2)[(Sn1.105(6)Zr0.009(1))Σ1.114(Fe3+0.523(78)Sc0.185(62)Al0.070(14))Σ0.779(Fe2+0.065(12)Mn2+0.041(5)Mg0.003(3))Σ0.110]Σ2.003(Si3.997(2)O13OH), and Ca2.006(8)[(Sn1.110(18)Ti0.006(3))Σ1.107(Fe3+0.648(50)Al0.063(11))Σ0.710(Fe2+0.140(30)Mn2+0.011(3)Mg0.005(2))Σ0.155(Nb0.020(6)Ta0.011(3))Σ0.040]Σ2.009(Si3.991(14)O13OH), respectively. The structure of the crystals was refined in the triclinic system with unconventional space-group symmetry C1 to R1 = 2.02% and 3.56%, respectively. The unit cells were found to be a = 10.0080(2), b = 8.3622(1), c = 13.2994(2) Å, α = 89.987(1), β = 109.095(2), γ = 89.978(1)° and V = 1051.77(3) Å3 for silesiaite from Szklarska Poręba, and a = 9.9985(3), b = 8.3446(2), c = 13.2760(4) Å, α = 89.986(3), β = 109.122(2), γ = 90.020(2)° and V = 1046.55(5) Å3 for silesiaite from Häiviäntien. In both crystals, the Ca sites are occupied solely by calcium and Si sites by silicon atoms. Optimised occupancies of the four M sites indicated slightly different site fillings. In the Szklarska Poręba silesiaite, the M1 site is predominantly occupied by trivalent Fe + Sc and the M2–M4 sites by Sn. In contrast, in the Häiviäntien silesiaite, the M1–M3 sites are Sn-dominant, while Fe3+ predominantly occupies the M4 site. The differences can be considered a result of an evolution of the M1–M4 site occupancies following a decrease of the &lt;M–O&gt; distance. Among the minerals of the kristiansenite group, Sc-free silesiaite from the Häiviäntien pegmatite has the smallest average radius of M-site cations and a unit-cell volume that increases proportionally to the (Fe2+ ± Sc) content. The hydrogen atoms form moderate hydrogen bonds between disilicate groups (Si2O7 and Si2O6OH) linked in rows along [101], indicating the presence of one hydroxyl in the formula calculated for Z = 4. All three kristiansenite-group species, i.e. silesiaite, kozłowskiite and kristiansenite, are isostructural.

Comparative analysis of techniques for extrinsic characterization of CAD/CAM ceramics

The present study aims to evaluate surface roughness and color stability of lithium disilicate and leucite ceramics after conventional and a novel surface finish techniques. Ceramic blocks (n = 84) of lithium disilicate and leucite were prepared and divided into 3 groups, being group 1: polished ceramic (negative control) (NC); group 2: stained (pigmented) ceramic followed by glaze (positive control) (PC) and group 3: simultaneous application of staining and glaze (experimental technique) (ET). Changes in luminosity and surface roughness were evaluated at 4 different time-points after a simulated brushing cycling test. Multivariate test results showed that there was a triple interaction effect between applied material, finish technique and time on their average roughness (p < 0.001) and luminosity (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean roughness considering NC and ET groups for the leucite and lithium disilicate ceramics, but there was an increase in roughness mean at t1 for the PC and ET groups. Considering luminosity (materials vs. time), there was a statistically significant difference in leucite PC group. The NC and ET groups did not differ statistically from each other. There was a luminosity reduction in NC lithium disilicate ceramics for PC and NC groups. Also, analysis of color variation (ΔΕ) revealed significant differences for disilicate but not for the leucite groups. In leucite-based ceramic groups, surface roughness showed intermediate values between ET and the other groups at all times. Correlation analysis between roughness and luminosity presented significant results for leucite (r = 0.331; p < 0.001) and non-significant for lithium disilicate groups (r = 0.068; p > 0.05). Results suggested the possible application of the experimental technique (ET) for reduction of clinical time compared to conventional techniques, by the use of less ceramic firing cycles, with no prejudice in terms of surface roughness and luminosity over the studied time.

Fracture resistance of pressed ZLS crowns versus pressed LD crowns under thermo-mechanical cycling

The aim of this study was conducted to assess the fracture resistance of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate all ceramic material "Celtra Press" compared to lithium disilicate one "IPS e-max Press" under simulated oral conditions. Fourteen ceramic crowns were fabricated on epoxy dies which were duplicated from stainless steel master die and divided into two equal groups (n=7) according to the material of construction; Group A: Crowns fabricated with IPS e-max Press material and Group B: Crowns fabricated with Celtra Press material. The crowns were then cemented onto their corresponding dies with a self-adhesive resin cement and subjected to thermocycling and cyclic loading. Then they were loaded to fractur in a universal testing machine. The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Student t-test used to compare mean values. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05 and 95% Confidence interval. Statistical analysis was performed using Graph Pad Instat (Graph Pad, Inc.) software for windows. The mean ± SD values of fracture resistance were recorded for lithium Disilicate group (1706.01 ±154.32 N) meanwhile the mean ± SD value recorded with celtra group were (1550.67±196.71 N). Zirconia reinforced lithium silicate ceramic crowns produced comparable fracture resistance values to lithium disilicate ceramic crowns and both tested materials are within the clinically acceptable values in the posterior area.

The Correlation of Surface Roughness Parameters of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate with Steatite Wear.

Various surface roughness parameters are utilized to describe the surface in the tooth to ceramics abrasion and to assess the resulting wear. The use of three-dimensional parameters may offer a better estimation for wear and an improved deduced clinical surface treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of various surface roughness parameters of zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics on the wear of steatite antagonists. Forty zirconia specimens with a diameter of 7 mm and a thickness of 3 mm and 40 lithium disilicate specimens with the dimensions 10×10×4 mm were each divided into five subgroups. Two subgroups were treated with different clinically established diamond burs; a third subgroup was treated with a silicone polishing set. Two additional subgroups were produced by glazing the surfaces after treatment. Surface roughness parameters were determined by laser scanning microscopy. All specimens underwent 1.2 million loading cycles using steatite antagonists. After regular intervals of cycles, precision impressions were made to assess the wear. The correlation between wear and different roughness parameters was evaluated using the Spearman correlation test. For the glazed zirconia, unglazed zirconia, and glazed lithium disilicate specimens no significant correlations (p > 0.05) between the investigated roughness parameters and antagonist wear could be found. In the unglazed lithium disilicate groups, significant (p ≤ 0.05) correlations with steatite substance loss could be found for several roughness parameters after 1.2 million cycles. For lithium disilicate, it seems not sufficient to use only one roughness parameter to indicate the wear behavior of the surface. There was no correlation between wear and the tested roughness parameters of zirconia surfaces.

Nomenclature of wöhlerite-group minerals

AbstractA nomenclature and classification scheme for wöhlerite-group minerals has been established. The general formula of minerals belonging to this group is given by X8(Si2O7)2W4, where X = Na+, Ca2+, Mn2+, Ti4+, Zr4+ and Nb5+; and W = F– and O2–. In addition, they may incorporate significant amounts of Mg2+, Fe2+, Y3+ and REE3+, where REE are the lanthanides. The main structural feature of these minerals is the four-columns-wide octahedral walls, which are interconnected through corner sharing and via the disilicate groups. The wöhlerite-group minerals crystallise in different unit-cell settings and symmetries, depending on the cationic ordering in the octahedral walls and the relative position of the disilicate groups. Different combinations of X and W constituents should be regarded as separate mineral species. In the case of coupled heterovalent substitutions at different crystallographic sites, it is advised to use the site-total charge approach to determine the correct end-member composition. Due to their structural and chemical features, wöhlerite-group minerals can easily form crystals with several micro domains, showing different crystal structures and chemical compositions. In addition, the crystallisation of polytypes is relatively common, although they should not be regarded as distinct mineral species. To date, ten minerals belonging to the wöhlerite group are considered as valid species: baghdadite, burpalite, cuspidine, hiortdahlite, janhaugite, låvenite, moxuanxueite, niocalite, normandite and wöhlerite. Låvenite and normandite are isostructural and are respectively the Zr and Ti end-members of a solid-solution series. Marianoite is discredited, as it is corresponds to wöhlerite. The ideal formula of hiortdahlite is revised as Na2Ca4(Ca0.5Zr0.5)Zr(Si2O7)2OF3, with one cationic site characterised by a valency-imposed double site-occupancy. These changes have been approved by the IMA–CNMNC (Proposal 20–D).

The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two types of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of two different all-ceramic restorations cemented onto customized zirconia abutments. Forty-two crowns were made of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics (n = 21 per group) and cemented on customized zirconia abutments by using two provisional resin cements of TempBond Clear and Implantlink Semi, and TempBond serving as the control (n = 7 per cement subgroup). The specimens' color was measured before and after cementation and after thermocycling. The color difference was calculated by using CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE00). The tensile force was applied to assess the retentive strength. Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's post-hoc, and Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests were used to compare ΔE00(1) and ΔE00(2) and two-way ANOVA followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test and T-test were used to compare retentive strength between subgroups. In the lithium disilicate group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi cements subgroup (P = 0.001). But, in the monolithic zirconia group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi (P = 0.020) and TempBond Clear cements (P = 0.007). In the monolithic zirconia group, the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.003) and Implantlink Semi cement (P = 0.001). However, in the lithium disilicate group, Implantlink Semi cement was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.019) and TempBond (control) (P = 0.001). The final color of both restorations was significantly affected by the provisional resin cement type. The retentive strength was influenced by both the type of cement and ceramic.

Does Resin Cement Type and Cement Preheating Influence the Marginal and Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns?

This paper assesses the effect of cement type and cement preheating on the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate single crown. Methods: 40 maxillary premolars were selected, restored with lithium disilicate single crowns. Teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10) based on cement type (Panavia SA or LinkForce) and preheating temperature (25 °C or 54 °C). After fabrication of the restoration, cements were incubated at 25 °C or 54 °C for 24 h, and each crown was cemented to its corresponding tooth. After 24 h, all specimens were thermally aged to (10,000 thermal cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C), then load cycled for 240,000 cycles. Each specimen was then sectioned in bucco-palatal direction and inspected under a stereomicroscope at x45 magnification for marginal and internal fit evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed (significance at p ≤ 0.05 level). Results: At the mid-buccal finish line, mid-buccal wall, palatal cusp, mid-palatal wall, mid-palatal finish line, and palatal margin measuring points, there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 25 °C, while there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) at the other points. At all measuring points, except at the palatal cusp tip (p = 0.948) and palatal margin (p = 0.103), there was a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 54 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 54 °C. Regardless of cement preheating, statistically significant differences were found in the buccal cusp tip, central groove, palatal cusp tip, and mid-palatal wall (p ≤ 0.05) in the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C, as well as the mid-palatal chamfer finish line and palatal margin in the LinkForce group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C. At the other measurement points, however, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The type of resin cement affects the internal and marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns. At most measuring points, the cement preheating does not improve the internal and marginal fit of all lithium disilicate crowns.

Effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives and a universal bonding resin on the bond strength of brackets to different ceramics

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesives on the shear bondstrength (SBS) of brackets bonded to different ceramic materials. Material and Methods: Fifty disk-shapedspecimens were produced from lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) and monolithic zirconia (Cercon) materials.Each specimen was polished with a three-step diamond polishing system. The polished ceramic surfaces wereconditioned with universal bonding resin (Assure Plus) without pre-treatment, except for two specimens.Central brackets were bonded onto different ceramic specimens with different adhesives as follows: group 1:conventional adhesive onto the lithium disilicate; group 2: one-step adhesive onto the lithium disilicate; group3: conventional adhesive onto the monolithic zirconia; group 4: one-step adhesive onto the monolithic zirconia.After thermal cycling, the specimens were subjected to the SBS test. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) scoreswere also recorded to evaluate bond failure type. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used forstatistical analysis. Results: There were statistically significant differences among the SBS values (p&lt;0.05). Themonolithic zirconia group with universal bonding resin and conventional orthodontic adhesive demonstratedthe highest SBS value (6.34 MPa) and ARI scores. The lithium disilicate group showed the lowest SBS value(2.17 MPa) with the same protocol. No adhesive remained on the lithium disilicate specimens. Conclusion: Onestepadhesive and universal bonding resin combination should not be considered as an alternative for lithiumdisilicate and monolithic zirconia restorations. Conventional adhesive and universal bonding resin applicationcan be effective on non-pretreated ceramic surfaces during orthodontic bonding.KEYWORDSBracket; Ceramics; Hydrophilic bonding resin; One-step adhesive.

Comparative Study of Fracture Resistance of Different Ceramic Restorations

Objective: Comparison of fracture resistance of different ceramic restorations. Methodology: 64 ceramic crowns were fabricated. They were divided into 4 equal groups according to the type of ceramic used (16 each). Group I: lithium disilicate, Group II: Zirconia reinforced lithium silicate, Group III: monolithic zirconia and Group IV: bilayered zirconia. Models of prepared teeth #14 were used as abutments. Eight sample specimens from each group were thermocycled between 55° C and 5° C. Fracture resistance was tested for the specimens. The load to fracture was recorded. Mean value for each group was calculated and differences between groups were tested for statistical significance. One fractured specimen from each group was scanned by scanning electron microscopy to determine the failure mode. Results: it was found that the highest fracture resistance mean value was recorded with monolithic zirconia group followed by lithium disilicate group then bilayered zirconia group while the lowest fracture resistance mean value was recorded for zirconia reinforced lithium silicate group and this was statistically significant. The four tested groups showed lower fracture resistance mean values after thermocycling. The fractography showed that surface defects were the origin of fracture in glass ceramic groups. While monolithic zirconia showed internal surface cracks. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: monolithic zirconia has the highest fracture resistance among the tested groups, while zirconia reinforced lithium silicate group has the lowest fracture resistance. Thermal aging significantly reduces the fracture resistance in the four tested groups.

Effect of in vitro aging and acidic storage on color, translucency, and contrast ratio of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics

Statement of problemHow the translucency and color of ceramic restorations are affected by surface changes from the corrosive environment in the oral cavity and aging of materials is unclear. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the impact of acidic exposure and aging on the color and translucency of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics. Material and methodsTwenty computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) monolithic zirconia specimens and 20 pressed lithium disilicate specimens were fabricated. Half of the specimens of each group were aged in an autoclave (7.5 hours, 134 °C, 0.2 MPa), and the rest were immersed in hydrochloric acid to simulate the acidic conditions in the oral cavity from gastric reflux. The color coordinates L∗, a∗, and b∗ were measured with an ultraviolet spectrophotometer before and after aging or acidic storage. The translucency parameters and contrast ratios were calculated, and the CIEDE2000 color difference formula was used to determine color differences before and after each treatment. ANOVA and ANCOVA test models were used for data analysis (α=.05), while differences of color parameters in respect to acceptability and perceptibility thresholds were evaluated with the 1-sample t test (α=.05). ResultsLithium disilicate presented a significantly higher translucency parameter and lower contrast ratio at baseline compared with monolithic zirconia specimens (P<.001). Acidic storage significantly impacted all parameters compared with aging, especially for the lithium disilicate group. Color differences were above the acceptability ΔΕ00 threshold for lithium disilicate after acidic storage (P=.001) and below for monolithic zirconia after acidic storage (P=.003). ConclusionsThe performance of lithium disilicate was slightly inferior compared with that of monolithic zirconia specimens, as they presented significant and clinically observable differences for the translucency parameter and ΔΕ00 after acidic storage and aging.

Multi-methodical study of the Ti, Fe2+ and Fe3+ distribution in chevkinite-subgroup minerals: X-ray diffraction, neutron diffraction, 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy and electron-microprobe analyses

Three non-metamict chevkinite-subgroup minerals, space group P21/a, from Cape Ashizuri, Japan, (No. 1), Tangir Valley, Diamar District, Pakistan (No. 2) and Haramosh Mts., Skardu district, Pakistan, (No. 3) were studied by crystal chemical techniques. Powder X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopic observations confirmed well crystalline samples. Electron-microprobe analyses indicated the general composition [(REE, Ca)4Fe2+(Fe2+, Fe3+, Ti)2Ti2(Si2O7)2O8] known for chevkinite-(Ce). Site scattering values determined by single-crystal X-ray structure refinements suggested assignment of subordinate Nb to the octahedral M3 and M4 sites, minor Th to M1 for the Ashizuri sample and minor Mg to M1 for both samples from Pakistan. Neutron time-of-flight powder diffraction studies were applied to determine the Ti/Fe distribution among octahedral sites for all samples and Mossbauer spectroscopy served for the Fe valence assignment at the four octahedral sites. Combined results gave the simplified formulas with Ce as dominant REE: No. 1 A(REE,Ca)4M1(Fe2+,Ti)M2(Ti,Fe3+)2M3,M4(Ti,Fe2+,Nb)2(Si2O7)2O8, No. 2 A(REE,Ca)4M1(Fe2+,Fe3+,Mg)M2(Ti,Fe3+)2M3,M4(Ti,Fe2+)2(Si2O7)2O8 and No. 3 A(REE,Ca)4M1(Fe3+,Fe2+,Mg,Ti)M2(Ti,Fe3+)2M3,M4(Ti,Fe2+)2(Si2O7)2O8. The dominant iron valence at M1 of the Haramosh sample (No. 3) is ferric whereas for samples Nos. 1 and 2 iron is ferrous. The structure of chevkinite-subgroup minerals consists of octahedral layers (M2, M3 and M4) alternating with an intermediate layer containing disilicate groups, REE polyhedra and strongly distorted M1 octahedra. Increased O atomic displacement parameters within the intermediate layers indicate disorder and/or strain to fit the extension of the embracing octahedral layers. A statistical analysis of chevkinite-subgroup structures (space groups P21/a, C2/m and P21/m) indicates a positive correlation between bond length and M1 bond angle variance. A negative correlation is found between bond length and the disilicate bending angle Si–O–Si, varying between ca. 160° and 175°. Outliers of this trend are delhuyarite-(Ce) Ce4Mg(Fe3+2W)□(Si2O7)2O6(OH)2, mainly due to octahedral W6+ and vacancies in the octahedral layers associated with OH groups, and synthetic Nd end-members with strong bonds between Nd and the intersecting O of the disilicate group. The observed trends reflect the main mechanisms in the intermediate layer to adopt to the size of the embracing rigid octahedral layers formed by M2, M3 and M4 octahedra.

Microcomputed tomography evaluation of cement shrinkage under zirconia versus lithium disilicate veneers

Statement of problemComputer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology and the improved translucency of recently developed high-strength monolithic zirconia could make them clinically acceptable for veneers if bonding to zirconia was as predictable as to glass-ceramics. Few studies have compared how resin cements behave between glass-ceramic and zirconia veneers before and after polymerization. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of resin cement, marginal discrepancy, and cement thickness before and after polymerization for glass-ceramic and zirconia veneers with light-polymerizing resin cement. Material and methodsTen lithium disilicate veneers and 10 zirconia veneers were fabricated with a CAD-CAM workflow on extracted human maxillary anterior teeth with intact enamel surfaces. Zirconia veneers were treated with airborne-particle abrasion, and lithium disilicate veneers were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid. All specimens were treated with ceramic primer and cemented with a light-polymerized resin cement. All specimens were scanned before and after resin cement polymerization by microcomputed tomography. The data were processed by the Amira software program to compare polymerization volumetric shrinkage, cement thickness, and marginal discrepancy. The data were compared by using a t test and analysis of variance (α=.05). Two bonded veneers were loaded in a mastication simulator for 400 000 cycles to investigate the effect of cyclic fatigue loading. ResultsMean volumetric polymerization shrinkage was 4.2 ±0.8% for the lithium disilicate group and 6.4 ±3.5% for the zirconia group. No significant difference was found for volumetric shrinkage between materials (P=.132). The mean ±standard deviations of the marginal discrepancies before and after polymerization were 178 ±41 μm and 158 ±37 μm for lithium disilicate and 115 ±33 μm and 107 ±32 μm for zirconia. A smaller marginal discrepancy was found for both materials after polymerization (P=.011) and for zirconia compared with lithium disilicate (P=.004). The mean ±standard deviation cement thickness values before and after polymerization were 157 ±27 μm and 147 ±27 μm for lithium disilicate and 162 ±53 μm and 147 ±52 μm for zirconia. Smaller cement thickness was found after polymerization (P<.001), whereas no significant difference was found in cement thickness between materials (P=.144). No changes were noted in marginal discrepancy and cement thickness as a result of the fatigue loading. ConclusionsThe difference in the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of cement between lithium disilicate and zirconia veneers was not statistically significant. Polymerization shrinkage resulted in smaller marginal discrepancy and cement thickness for both veneer materials.

Fracture Resistance of New Metal-Free Materials Used for CAD-CAM Fabrication of Partial Posterior Restorations.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate in vitro the fracture resistance and fracture type of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials. Materials and Methods: Discs were fabricated (10 × 1.5 mm) from four test groups (N = 80; N = 20 per group): lithium disilicate (LDS) group (control group): IPS e.max CAD®; zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate (ZRLS) group: VITA SUPRINITY®; polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (PICN) group: VITA ENAMIC®; resin nanoceramics (RNC) group: LAVA™ ULTIMATE. Each disc was cemented (following the manufacturers’ instructions) onto previously prepared molar dentin. Samples underwent until fracture using a Shimadzu® test machine. The stress suffered by each material was calculated with the Hertzian model, and its behavior was analyzed using the Weibull modulus. Data were analyzed with ANOVA parametric statistical tests. Results: The LDS group obtained higher fracture resistance (4588.6 MPa), followed by the ZRLS group (4476.3 MPa) and PICN group (4014.2 MPa) without statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Hybrid materials presented lower strength than ceramic materials, the RNC group obtaining the lowest values (3110 MPa) with significant difference (p < 0.001). Groups PICN and RNC showed greater occlusal wear on the restoration surface prior to star-shaped fracture on the surface, while other materials presented radial fracture patterns. Conclusion: The strength of CAD-CAM materials depended on their composition, lithium disilicate being stronger than hybrid materials.

A comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between feldspathic porcelain and lithium di silicate ceramic layered to a zirconia core- An in vitro study.

BackgroundThe bond strength between the zirconia core and ceramic veneer is the weakest component in the layered structure. Delamination of veneering ceramic is reported as one of the most frequent problems associated with Veneered Zirconia restorations. The aim of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of lithium di silicate porcelain to that of feldspathic porcelain on a zirconia Substrate. Material and MethodsTwo groups (group A and B) of zirconia blocks with each group having 20 samples were fabricated according to Schmitz Schulmeyer method. Group A (n =20 ) samples were veneered with feldspathic veneering porcelain and Group B (n=20) samples were veneered with heat pressed lithium disilicate ceramic. The fabricated samples were then evaluated for shear bond strength in Universal Testing Machine. The values were then statistically analyzed using independent sample t-test. ResultsResults of the current study showed that mean shear bond strength of feldspathic porcelain 11.40±1.29 MPa is comparatively lower than the mean shear bond strength of the lithium disilicate group 18.81±1.76 MPa. The statistical analysis indicated that (p value<0.01) there is a statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength between the two groups. ConclusionsThe heat pressed lithium disilicate veneering materials has a better shear bond strength compared to feldspathic veneering ceramic material when layered to a zirconia core and it can be used as a viable alternative material to feldspathic porcelain layering material in bilayered zirconia restorations. Key words:Zirconia, bilayered ceramics, lithium disilicate , shear bond strength, ceramic chipping.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to a new all-ceramic crown composed of lithium silicate infused with zirconia: An in vitro comparative study

This study sought to determine whether a clinically acceptable shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets is achievable to CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design/Manufacturing) lithium silicate infused with zirconia and whether a chemical pre-treatment bonding protocol produced a higher shear bond strength. Twenty lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO) samples, twenty zirconia samples, and twenty lithium disilicate samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a mandibular left first molar. The samples were split into two test groups, one of which received a chemical pre-treatment protocol (hydrofluoric acid etch). Shear bond strength testing was conducted and the mean, maximum, minimal, and standard deviation SBS values for each were calculated and recorded in MPa. An Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) score was also assigned to each sample to assess the mode of bond failure. SBS of the lithium silicate infused with zirconia groups were significantly less than the chemically pre-treated lithium disilicate group, however both materials, when chemical pre-treatment protocol was used, were not statistically different than the enamel control. Orthodontic bonding to lithium silicate infused with zirconia yielded a weaker shear bond strength than bonding to traditional lithium disilicate, however, when the surface was pre-treated with hydrofluoric acid etch it provides a bond strength that is within an acceptable clinical range.