Is the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate lower                    than that of lithium disilicate? - A systematic review and                    meta-analysis

Zhang, Lixian; Hong, Deng-wei; Zheng, Ming; Yu, Hao

doi:10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_20_00112

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(86 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A systematic review and meta-analysis study reported that after the recommended surface treatment method (hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization) application, no significant difference was found in the bond strengths of lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate to resin-based luting agents. 38 These observations support the benefit of airborne-particle abrasion to improve the adhesion to titanium surfaces and may explain the adhesive failure between the titanium and the cement in the untreated control group and the successful bonding between the resin-based luting agent and the ceramic.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Effect of surface treatment and luting agent type on shear bond strength of titanium to ceramic materials

Karaokutan

Özel

2022

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE This study aimed to compare the effect of different surface treatments and luting agent types on the shear bond strength of two ceramics to commercially pure titanium (Cp Ti). MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 160 Cp Ti specimens were divided into 4 subgroups (n = 40) according to surface treatments received (control, 50 µm airborne-particle abrasion, 110 µm airborne-particle abrasion, and tribochemical coating). The cementation surfaces of titanium and all-ceramic specimens were treated with a universal primer. Two cubic all-ceramic discs (lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC) and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLC)) were cemented to titanium using two types of resin-based luting agents: self-cure and dual-cure (n = 10). After cementation, all specimens were subjected to 5000 cycles of thermal aging. A shear bond strength (SBS) test was conducted, and the failure mode was determined using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA, and the Tukey-HSD test was used for post hoc comparisons ( P < .05). RESULTS Significant differences were found among the groups based on surface treatment, resin-based luting agent, and ceramic type ( P < .05). Among the surface treatments, 50 µm air-abrasion showed the highest SBS, while the control group showed the lowest. SBS was higher for dual-cure resin-based luting agent than self-cure luting agent. ZLC showed better SBS values than LDC. CONCLUSION The cementation of ZLC with dual-cure resin-based luting agent showed better bonding effectiveness to commercially pure titanium treated with 50 µm airborne-particle abrasion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Effect of surface treatment and luting agent type on shear bond strength of titanium to ceramic materials

Karaokutan

Özel

2022

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fracture resistance of a dental prosthesis depends on the elastic modulus of the supporting structure, properties of the bonding agent, thickness of the restoration, and design [28]. The shape of an FDP is not constant, but varies in terms of its complex structure, consisting of many concave and convex contours depending on the geometry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All cemented specimens were kept in distilled water (37°C) for 24 h [28] and then exposed to 10.000 cycles of thermal cycling (Thermo-cycler TC21, ROBOTA, Egypt) with a 15 s dwell period in each water bath and 5 s transition time to mimic approximately 1 year clinically [28,37]. Using a chewing simulation unit (Chewing Simulator CS-4.4, SD Mechatronik, Germany), they were subjected to 240.000 cycles (frequency, 1.6 Hz) to simulate a unidirectional vertical force of 50 N [4].…”

Section: Thermomechanical Agingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3). The load was applied with a 5-mm stainless steel ball perpendicular to the occlusal surface of the pontic [28] in the mesial fossa that contacted the buccal and lingual cusps [38], with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min [28]. The fractured specimens were qualitatively assessed using a stereomicroscope at a magnification of 40×.…”

Section: Fracture Resistance Test and Fractographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramics (ZLS) were introduced with 10% zirconium dioxide particles homogeneously incorporated inside a lithium-metasilicate glass ceramic matrix to reinforce fracture resistance through crack interruption [26][27][28]. The esthetic and mechanical properties of ZLS improved due to fine-grained uniform glass crystals (0.5−0.7 μm).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis to substitute a single premolar: Impact of retainer design and ceramic material after dynamic loading

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Comparison of the fracture strengths of single-unit metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconium restorations in the molar region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Işisağ,

Pektaş

2023

Odontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite the increasing popularity of monolithic zirconia restorations (MZ), metal ceramic restorations (MC) are still considered the gold standard in the posterior region. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the fracture strengths of single unit MC and MZ in the molar region.Methods: This review was structured based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020). Literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases until November 18, 2022. In vitro studies that evaluated the fracture strength of MC and MZ were included. Statistical analyzes were performed with CMA (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis) program, with a signi cance level of 0.05. Results:Five of 753 studies were selected. Fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show a statistically signi cant difference both tooth (95% CI:-1.589: 2.118, p=0.779, z= 0.280) and implant (95% CI: -2.215: 2.191, p=0.992 z= -0.010) supported restorations. However in tooth supported restorations a signi cant difference was found in the subgroup analysis considering different abutment materials (P<0.001) and aging treatments (P<0.001). Additionally in implant supported restorations a signi cant difference was found in subgroup analysis considering different cements (p=0.001) and load speeds (p=0.001).Conclusion:Within the limitations this present study, fracture strengths of MZ and MC did not show a signi cant difference in implant or tooth supported single unit restorations at posterior region.Clinical relevance: MZ may be an alternative to MC in posterior single restorations. Present results should be interpreted with caution, as included studies were in vitro.

show abstract

Is the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate lower than that of lithium disilicate? - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 57 publications

Effect of surface treatment and luting agent type on shear bond strength of titanium to ceramic materials

Effect of surface treatment and luting agent type on shear bond strength of titanium to ceramic materials

Cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis to substitute a single premolar: Impact of retainer design and ceramic material after dynamic loading

Comparison of the fracture strengths of single-unit metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconium restorations in the molar region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About