Fracture toughness of chairside CAD/CAM materials – Alternative loading approach for compact tension test

Badawy, Rania; El‐Mowafy, Omar; Tam, Laura E.

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.003

Cited by 65 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not observe other technical complications such as crown fracture, chipping, or loss of retention despite one patient having had a parafunctional habit (yet did not use a night‐guard); this compares favorably with findings reported by others . Even when it was determined that there was inadequate occlusal thickness in monolithic LDGC crowns; there was a relatively low rate of fracture …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…[3][4][5] Even when it was determined that there was inadequate occlusal thickness in monolithic LDGC crowns; there was a relatively low rate of fracture. [30][31][32] Overall, patients were very satisfied with the esthetic outcomes (94.0% for color and 91.0% for shape) as recorded using the VAS questionnaire. This finding was higher than another report on patients' esthetic satisfaction of MC crowns (82.0%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Aziz

El‐Mowafy

Tenenbaum

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance and the effect of various patient and provider‐related factors on the longevity of chairside monolithic posterior lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic (LDGC) computer‐aided design (CAD)‐computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) crowns provided by predoctoral students. Materials and Methods A sample of posterior LDGC CAD‐CAM crowns was evaluated. Crown preparations were milled chairside using the CEREC Omnicam system and cemented with Rely‐X Unicem or Calibra Universal resin cements. Clinical assessment of the crowns and supporting periodontal structures was performed using the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Intraoral photographs as well as radiographs were taken for further assessment by two evaluators. Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis was performed. Results A total of 40 crowns were inserted in 32 patients and evaluated for 4 years. Three complications were observed (two‐technical and one‐biological). No chipping or fracture of crowns was observed. No significant association was found between age, sex, periodontal condition, tooth type, tooth vitality, cement type, and longevity. The 4‐year cumulative survival and success rates were 95.0 and 92.3%, respectively. Conclusion Chairside LDGC CAD‐CAM crowns exhibited a high survival rate after 4 years in function and were shown to be a viable and reliable treatment option for posterior teeth. Clinical significance The high survival rate of chairside CAD‐CAM crowns observed in this study suggests the likelihood of predictable performance in the predoctoral setup.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Aziz

El‐Mowafy

Tenenbaum

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Difference in size and distribution of the crystalline phase is also responsible for different behaviors of materials. 28 In the present study, difference in distribution of filler particles, fabrication process, and rate of polymerization (degree of conversion) led to difference in fracture toughness of composite resins.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Fracture Toughness Comparison of Three Indirect Composite Resins Using 4-Point Flexural Strength Method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The advantages of indirect composite restorations such as less crack formation during their computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing process, compared with ceramic restorations, have resulted in their growing popularity. However, restoration failure is a major concern with regard to the long-term clinical success of restorations and may occur as the result of propagation of a crack originated from an internal flaw in the restoration. This study aimed to compare the fracture toughness of three indirect composite resins. Materials and Methods In this in vitro experimental study, 10 specimens measuring 3 × 3 × 18 mm were fabricated of Gradia, Crios, and high impact polymer composite indirect composites. A single edge notch with a diameter < 0.3 mm and 0.3 mm length was created in the 9 mm longitudinal dimension of specimens using a no. 11 surgical scalpel. The specimens were then subjected to 4-point flexural strength test in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.1 mm/s until failure. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test. The statistical power was set at p ˂ 0.05. Results One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in fracture toughness of the three composite groups (p = 0.000). According to the Tukey HSD analysis, the fracture toughness of HIPC was significantly higher than that of the other two composites. The fracture toughness of Gradia was significantly lower among all. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the results showed that high temperature-pressure polymerization can increase resistance to crack propagation and subsequently improve the clinical service of indirect composite restorations. Although we do not know the filler volume percentage of HIPC, it seems that filler volume percentage of the composite is inversely correlated with fracture toughness.

show abstract

“…The present study found that 1-mm hybrid ceramics performed significantly better in the fatigue test compared with 0.5-mm ZLS. This may be associated with the fact that the microstructure of PIC contains polymer-filled pores, and this combination of materials aims to increase fracture resistance as well as resistance to flexion [29][30][31][32][33]. Elastic modulus and fracture resistance are factors that must be taken into account in the selection of materials, since they are directly related to the materials' behavior against loads.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fatigue behavior of ultrafine tabletop ceramic restorations

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Fracture toughness of chairside CAD/CAM materials – Alternative loading approach for compact tension test

Cited by 65 publications

References 53 publications

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Fracture Toughness Comparison of Three Indirect Composite Resins Using 4-Point Flexural Strength Method

Fatigue behavior of ultrafine tabletop ceramic restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About