In vitro analysis of the fracture resistance of CAD–CAM monolithic zirconia molar crowns with different occlusal thickness

Fracture resistance of zirconia-composite veneered crowns in comparison with zirconia-porcelain crowns

“…When comparing the Zahran et al results it can be seen that the composite veneered zirconia crowns withstood higher loads than VITA mark II crowns. Sorrentino et al evaluated monolithic zirconia molar crowns, and the groups with 1.5 and 1.0 mm thicknesses showed a fracture resistance of 1,554 N (±366.3) and 1,655 N (±314.6) respectively 53) . These studies show that porcelain veneered zirconia and monolithic zirconia crowns exhibited fracture resistance exceeding the highest recorded bite forces and ranging between 1,400-1,600 N and with a common cohesive mode of fracture.…”

In Vitro Analysis of the Fracture Resistance of Cad-Cam Cerasmart Molar Crowns with Different Occlusal Thickness

“…As reported in a previous investigation [1]. 30 extracted human maxillary third molars were used for the study.…”

“…In the last decade, new production technologies and implemented material science has led to a massive introduction of metal-free restorations in clinical dental practice [1][2][3]. Moreover, innovative digital workflows allowed a variety of Computer Aided Design-Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD-CAM) block materials to gain popularity among dentists; such machinable materials are available as composite, resin-infiltrated ceramic and ceramic blocks, to be used prevalently as single tooth restorations [4,5].…”

“…On the basis of minimal intervention dentistry, the preservation of tooth structures is crucial and produced a significant change in preparation designs that have become more and more conservative particularly in posterior regions, taking advantage of adhesive cementation techniques [2,8,9]. Nonetheless, besides manufacturers' guidelines, there is no consensus about a minimum recommended thickness for metal-free posterior restorations [1,10,11]. In this scenario, machinable CAD-CAM composite blocks have gained popularity because of undeniable advantages, such as reliable mechanical properties, high esthetic potential and wear behavior similar to opposing dental enamel [5].…”

Zircone translucide & CFAO directe : une réponse pertinente pour de nombreuses situations cliniques

“…Développée au départ comme matériaux de remplacement pour les armatures métalliques et les piliers implantaires, les industriels ont été très attentifs aux remarques des cliniciens et techniciens de laboratoire et se sont adaptés pour mettre sur le marché de nouveaux matériaux capables de concilier résistance mécanique, faible abrasivité (1, 2, 3) et esthétique, pouvant répondre tant aux besoins d'infrastructures que de restaurations monolithiques. On trouve aujourd'hui sur le marché une gamme étendue de matériaux validés scientifiquement (4,5) : des zircones historiques, très opaques ayant une résistance de l'ordre de 1200-1400 MPa, celles-ci sont principalement réservées aux armatures de bridges et aux piliers implantaires. Des zircones translucides avec des résistances de l'ordre de 800MPa ont été développées pour les restaurations monolithiques postérieures.…”