Effect of different preparation designs and material types on fracture resistance of minimally invasive posterior indirect adhesive restorations

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of various preparation designs and the material type on fracture resistance of minimally invasive posterior indirect adhesive restorations after aging using a digital standardization method.Materials and MethodsOne‐hundred sixty human maxillary premolars free from caries were assigned into 16 groups (n = 10): bevel design on enamel substrate with mesial box only (VEM), butt joint design on enamel substrate with mesial box only (BEM), bevel design on enamel substrate with mesial and distal box (VED), butt joint design on enamel substrate with mesial and distal box (BED), bevel design on dentin substrate with mesial box only (VDM), butt joint design on dentin substrate with mesial box only (BDM), bevel design on dentin substrate with mesial and distal box (VDD), and butt joint design on dentin substrate with mesial and distal box (BDD). Each group was restored with pressable lithium disilicate (LS2) or disperse‐filled polymer composite (DPC) materials. Adhesive resin cement was used to bond the restorations. The specimens were aged for 10,000 thermal cycles (5°C and 55°C), then 240,000 chewing cycles. Each specimen was subjected to compressive axial load until failure. A two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by a post hoc Tukey test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).ResultsThe two‐way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference among designs (p < 0.001) and materials (p < 0.001) with no interaction effect (p = 0.07) between the variables. The Post hoc Tukey test revealed that the VEM group exhibited the highest mean fracture resistance value, while the BDM group had the lowest. The LS2 groups showed the highest mean fracture resistance values. The DPC groups showed a restorable fracture pattern compared to the LS2 groups.ConclusionsBevel and butt joint designs with mesial or distal boxes are recommended for conservative posterior indirect adhesive restorations in premolar areas. Enamel substrate improved load distribution and fracture resistance. DPCs have restorable failure patterns, while pressed LS2 may harm underlying structures.