Premium
Fracture resistance of prepared premolars restored with bonded new lab composite and all‐ceramic inlay/onlay restorations: Laboratory study
Author(s) -
Wafaie Ramy Ahmed,
Ibrahim Ali Ashraf,
Mahmoud Salah Hasab
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/jerd.12364
Subject(s) - inlay , materials science , cubic zirconia , ceramic , universal testing machine , composite number , dentistry , luting agent , composite material , adhesive , medicine , bond strength , ultimate tensile strength , layer (electronics)
Objectives To assess the influence of new light curing lab composite, lithium‐disilicate glass‐ceramic and yttrium‐stabilized zirconia‐based ceramic on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II inlay and onlay preparations. Methods Seventy sound maxillary premolars were divided randomly into seven main groups. The first group was left intact (control group). The remaining six groups were prepared with inlay and onlay cavities and restored with lab composite (SR Nexco), lithium‐disilicate glass‐ceramic (IPS e.max Press) and yttrium‐stabilized zirconia‐based ceramic (ICE Zirkon). The restorations were cemented with luting resin composite (Variolink N). All specimens were thermocycled 5000 cycles between 5°C ± 2°C and 55°C ± 2°C and were then cyclic loaded for 500 000 cycles. The specimens were subjected to a compressive load in a universal testing machine using a metal sphere until fracture occurred. The results were analyzed by 2‐way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests. The level of significance was set at P < .05. Results There were no statistically significant differences among the means of control group and the groups restored with zirconia ceramic inlays and onlays ( P > .05). However, statistically significant differences were found among the means of control group and the groups restored with lab composite inlays, lab composite onlays, pressable glass ceramic inlays and pressable glass ceramic onlays ( P < .05). Conclusions The fracture resistance of prepared teeth for inlay and onlay restorations is inferior to the intact teeth when lab composite is used. Conversely, when a ceramic material being used, the prepared teeth for inlay and onlay restorations showed a comparable strength to the intact teeth especially zirconia ceramic. Clinical Significance Premolar teeth restored with zirconia ceramic inlays and onlays exhibited fracture resistance comparable to intact teeth.