Zirconia-reinforced Lithium Disilicate Research Articles

Evaluation of translucency of two types of glass ceramics with different thickness: An in vitro study

Background: Veneered all-ceramic restorations are associated with a high incidence of chipping and veneer delamination from the inner core. Monolithic all-ceramic crowns facilitate the fabrication process and minimize residual stresses between core and veneer. A new material, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZRL), Celtra Duo was recently introduced for the fabrication of monolithic anterior crowns to overcome the aesthetic drawbacks of traditional zirconia and also to improve the strength of the lithium disilicate. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the translucency of CAD/CAM zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic and Lithium silicate glass-ceramic at a different thickness. Materials and Methods: CAD/CAM Lithium Silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) and CAD/CAM ZLS Celtra Duo ceramic materials were used in the study. A total of forty Disc-shaped ceramic specimens (n=40), which comprises 20 from each ceramic material (n=20) were fabricated. The twenty specimens from each material group were divided into four subgroups with five specimens each (n=5) with a thickness of 1.0 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm, respectively. All the specimens were thermo-cycled to simulate one-year clinical service followed by analyzing the degree of translucency using spectrophotometer. The obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis using the student t-test and post-hoc pair-wise comparisons. Results: A decrease in translucency with an increase in the thickness of the ceramic specimens was observed. Significant differences were observed between the ceramic materials except at 1.5 mm thickness (p=0.621). Conclusion: Both the ceramic materials displayed decreased in their translucency with the increase in the thickness. The glazed Celtra Duo has demonstrated relatively more translucency than e.max CAD ceramic at all thicknesses.

Marginal Gap Distance and Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Disilicate All-Ceramic Crowns Constructed With Two Different Processing TechniquesWith Two Different Processing Techniques

Statement of problem: The microstructure and processing methods used to produce any dental restoration might affect the final mechanical outcomes as well as the clinical success. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate and zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic crowns constructed using two processing techniques after fatigue loading namely, CAD/CAM technique and pressing technique. The marginal integrity of the crowns was examined before and after fatigue loading. Methods: A total number of thirty-two freshly extracted maxillary first molars were collected. The teeth were chosen to be of similar bucco-lingual and mesiodistal dimensions. The teeth were mounted vertically into epoxy resin templates. Full coverage all-ceramic preparation was performed for all samples using a standardized technique. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into four equal groups (n=8) according to the all-ceramic materials and technique used for crown fabrication as follows: Group I: IPS e-max CAD(EC): eight prepared teeth were restored with machinable lithium disilicate glass ceramics. Group II: Celtra Duo(CD): eight prepared teeth were restored with machinable zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate glass ceramics. Group III: IPS e-max Press (EP): eight prepared teeth were restored with pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramics. Group IV: Celtra Press (CP): eight prepared teeth were restored with pressable zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate glass ceramics. The crowns were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement (Rely X Unicem). Vertical margin gap distance of all the crowns was measured using a stereomicroscope. Following vertical marginal gap distance measurements, the samples were subjected to fatigue cyclic loading for 60000 cycles which is equivalent to six months clinical service. The vertical marginal gap distance for all samples were subsequently remeasured after the fatigue loading testing. Fracture resistance test was done using universal testing machine. The fracture load was recorded in Newton. Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: One-way ANOVA test for comparison between the fracture resistance of the four types of all-ceramic crowns revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between mean fracture resistance of different all ceramic materials and techniques used in this study (P-value <0.001). For the marginal gap distance either before or after fatigue cyclic loading; there was a statistically significant difference between the four all ceramic crowns used in this study.Conclusions: CAD/CAM techniques showed better fracture resistance values than pressable techniques, even if the same material was used. The addition of zirconia to lithium disilicate ceramics did not improve the fracture resistance of all ceramic crowns. Pressable processing techniques showed better vertical marginal gap distance than CAD/CAM techniques for both ceramic materials used. Cyclic loading resulted in significant increase in the vertical marginal gap distance for all ceramic crowns using different processing techniques.