Objective: Currently, minimal invasive approaches combining less invasive finish line preparations and reduced ceramic thickness are required. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of two ceramic systems fabricated with two preparation designs using CAD/CAM standardization technology. Materials and methods: Forty intact human maxillary premolars were divided into two main groups according to the preparation technique. Group H (Horizontal): teeth with shoulder finish line and group V (Vertical): teeth with feather edge. Each main group was subdivided randomly into two subgroups according to the material used. Group CD (Celtra Duo) zirconia-reinforced glass ceramics and group K (KATANA) monolithic zirconia. CAD/CAM was used for standardization of natural teeth preparation. After cementation using self-adhesive resin cement, all specimens were subjected to 5000 thermal cycles and then were loaded until fracture. Failure types were evaluated using Stereomicroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Results: Nonsignificant; the higher mean value was recorded with VCD group (482.5 ± 103.8 N) and VK group (1347.6 ± 177.4 N) vs HCD group (471 ± 107.6 N) and HK group (1255.6 ± 121.3 N). SEM findings showed that fractures occurred mainly at the occlusal side of the crowns. Conclusions: Vertical preparation showed a promising alternative to horizontal preparation. Moreover, both Celtra Duo and KATANA crowns can be used in premolar area with 0.5 mm margin thickness. Clinical significance: Zirconia-reinforced glass ceramic and monolithic zirconia crowns may not necessitate the preparation of invasive finish lines as the type of finish line did not impair the strength after aging conditions

Objective To study the fracture resistance and stress distribution pattern of translucent zirconia and fiber-reinforced composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RPFDPs) with two retainer designs. Materials and methods Forty human mandibular molars were divided into two groups according to the retainer design. The restorations included a premolar pontic and 2 retainer designs: (D1) inlay ring retainer and (D2) lingual coverage retainer. Each main group was then divided according to the material used (n = 10): zirconia (Z) or fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (F). Restorations were cemented using dual polymerizing adhesive luting resin. All specimens were thermo-cycled (5–55 °C for 10,000 cycles), then subjected to dynamic loading (50 N, 240,000, and 1.6 Hz) and fracture resistance test. The finite element analysis includes the two models of retainer designs used in the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentin, luting resin, and restorations were examined when the restorations failed. Results A significantly higher failure load was recorded for zirconia groups (505.00 ± 61.50 and 548.00 ± 75.63 N for D1Z and D2Z, respectively) than for FRC groups (345.00 ± 42.33 and 375.10 ± 53.62 N for D1F and D2F, respectively) (P = 0.001). With regard to failure mode, D2 showed a more favorable failure pattern than D1. Model D2 resulted in lower stresses in tooth structure than model D1, and zirconia transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure than FRC. Conclusions The lingual coverage retainer (D2) enhanced the biomechanical performance of the restoration/tooth complex. Considering the failure mode and tooth stress, FRC is a promising treatment option when constructing a cantilever RPFDP. Clinical relevance Dentists should be aware of the biomechanical behavior during the selection of the material and for the replacement of a single missing mandibular premolar tooth with minimally invasive RBFDP.

To evaluate the fracture load and stress magnitude of different retainer designs of minimally invasive cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) after artificial aging. Materials and methods: Fifty caries-free human mandibular molars were prepared as abutments for cantilever fixed dental prostheses using different retainer designs: one wing (OW), two wings (TW), inlay ring (IR), lingual coverage (LC), and occlusal coverage (OC). Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing were used for milling the RBFDPs using fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), and the restorations were adhesively bonded. The specimens were then subjected to thermomechanical aging and loaded until failure. The 3D finite element analysis (FEA) was performed with five models of retainer designs similar to the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentine, luting resin, and restorations were examined. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.001). Results: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was found between all groups except between IR and LC and between OW and TW designs, with the highest mean failure load detected for OC (534.70 N) and the lowest detected for OW (129.80 N). With regard to failure mode, OW, TW, and LC showed more incidences of favorable failure patterns than IR and OC designs. FEA showed that FRC transmitted low stresses in tooth structure and high stresses to the luting resin. Conclusions: LC and OC designs can be used to design cantilever RBFDPs in premolar area. IR design transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure and resulted in 30% catastrophic failure. OW and TW were below the normal occlusal force and should be carefully used.

To evaluate the influence of retainer design and ceramic materials on the durability of minimally invasive cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) after artificial aging. Methods: One hundred caries-free human mandibular molars were prepared as abutments for all-ceramic cantilevered fixed dental prostheses using the following retainer designs: One wing (OW), Two wings (TW), Inlay ring (IR), Lingual coverage (LC), and Occlusal coverage (OC). Two ceramic materials were used: monolithic high translucent zirconia(z) and zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate (ZLS 2 ) (n=10). All restorations were adhesively bonded with resin cement. The thermocycling of the specimens were performed between 5°C and 55°C for 10,000 cycles and then exposed to 240.000 cycles of dynamic loading on a chewing simulator. All surviving specimens were loaded onto the pontic until failure using a universal testing machine. Results: The mean failure load ranged from 124.00 to 627.00 N for the zirconia groups and from 133.30 to 230.00 N for the ZLS 2 groups. Regarding the materials, a significantly higher failure load was recorded in the zirconia groups than in the ZLS 2 groups (P<0.001), except for OW (P=0.748). Regarding the retainer designs, a significant different failure load was recorded between the different designs except for IR and LC in the zirconia groups, IR and OC, OW and TW, and TW and LC in the ZLS 2 groups (P<0.001). Conclusions: Zirconia IR, LC, and OC can be used as cantilever RBFDP in the premolar region. The fracture resistance of the ZLS 2 design was below the normal bite force and should not be recommended as the first option.

Objectives Large part of the tooth is required to be removed during crown preparation. A minimally invasive method for preparing single crowns is required to increase the durability of teeth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two ceramic systems fabricated with minimally invasive vertical preparation. Materials and methods Forty endodontically treated maxillary premolars were prepared with vertical preparation and received temporary crowns for a period of 21 days. Twenty zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Celtra Duo HT, Dentsply Sirona, Germany) and 20 monolithic high translucency zirconia (Katana HT, Kuarary Noritake, Japan) crowns were fabricated by CAD/CAM and cemented with dual-polymerizing luting resin. The crowns were evaluated clinically and radiographically for 36 months following modified FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted with t Student test (Cochran Q). Results Over the follow-up period, there was no need to replace any of the study’s crowns. The overall survival rate of the 40 crowns was 100% according to the Kaplan–Meier survival method. The clinical quality of all crowns and the patient’s satisfaction were high. No caries was detected and no adverse soft tissue reactions around the crowns were observed. Periodontal probing depth was reported to be increased at mesial and distal sites more than the facial one in the 36-month follow-up with no statistically significant difference between both materials (P = 0.186). Conclusions Zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate could be used as a material for restoration of teeth prepared with vertical preparation technique. Both ceramic materials achieved good esthetic results, promotes healthy and stable soft tissues with no mechanical complications after 3 years of clinical evaluation. Clinical relevance Monolithic high translucency zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics can be used for the restorations of minimal invasive vertical preparation in premolar area with 0.5 mm margin thickness.