Julia Lubauer, Renan Belli, Fernanda H Schünemann, Ragai E Matta, Manfred Wichmann, Sandro Wartzack, Harald Völkl, Anselm Petschelt, Ulrich Lohbauer
{"title":"Inner marginal strength of CAD/CAM materials is not affected by machining protocol.","authors":"Julia Lubauer, Renan Belli, Fernanda H Schünemann, Ragai E Matta, Manfred Wichmann, Sandro Wartzack, Harald Völkl, Anselm Petschelt, Ulrich Lohbauer","doi":"10.1080/26415275.2021.1964969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Here we aimed to compare two machining strategies regarding the marginal strength of CAD/CAM materials using a hoop-strength test in model sphero-cylindrical dental crowns, coupled with finite element analysis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five CAD/CAM materials indicated for single posterior crowns were selected, including a lithium disilicate (IPS e.max<sup>®</sup> CAD), a lithium (di)silicate (Suprinity<sup>®</sup> PC), a polymer-infiltrated ceramic scaffold (Enamic<sup>®</sup>), and two indirect resin composites (Grandio<sup>®</sup> Blocs and Lava™ Ultimate). A sphero-cylindrical model crown was built on CAD Software onto a geometrical abutment and machined using a Cerec MC XL system according to the two available protocols: <i>rough-fast</i> and <i>fine-slow</i>. Specimens were fractured using a novel hoop-strength test and analyzed using the finite element method to obtain the inner marginal strength. Data were evaluated using Weibull statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Machining strategy did not affect the marginal strength of any restorative material tested here. Ceramic materials showed a higher density of chippings in the outer margin, but this did not reduce inner marginal strength. IPS e.max<sup>®</sup> CAD showed the statistically highest marginal strength, and Enamic<sup>®</sup> and Lava™ Ultimate were the lowest. Grandio<sup>®</sup> Blocs showed higher performance than Suprinity<sup>®</sup> PC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The <i>rough-fast</i> machining strategy available in Cerec MC XL does not degrade the marginal strength of the evaluated CAD/CAD materials when compared to its <i>fine-fast</i> machining strategy. Depending on the material, resin composites have the potential to perform better than some glass-ceramic materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"119-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8386733/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1964969","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Purpose: Here we aimed to compare two machining strategies regarding the marginal strength of CAD/CAM materials using a hoop-strength test in model sphero-cylindrical dental crowns, coupled with finite element analysis.
Materials and methods: Five CAD/CAM materials indicated for single posterior crowns were selected, including a lithium disilicate (IPS e.max® CAD), a lithium (di)silicate (Suprinity® PC), a polymer-infiltrated ceramic scaffold (Enamic®), and two indirect resin composites (Grandio® Blocs and Lava™ Ultimate). A sphero-cylindrical model crown was built on CAD Software onto a geometrical abutment and machined using a Cerec MC XL system according to the two available protocols: rough-fast and fine-slow. Specimens were fractured using a novel hoop-strength test and analyzed using the finite element method to obtain the inner marginal strength. Data were evaluated using Weibull statistics.
Results: Machining strategy did not affect the marginal strength of any restorative material tested here. Ceramic materials showed a higher density of chippings in the outer margin, but this did not reduce inner marginal strength. IPS e.max® CAD showed the statistically highest marginal strength, and Enamic® and Lava™ Ultimate were the lowest. Grandio® Blocs showed higher performance than Suprinity® PC.
Conclusions: The rough-fast machining strategy available in Cerec MC XL does not degrade the marginal strength of the evaluated CAD/CAD materials when compared to its fine-fast machining strategy. Depending on the material, resin composites have the potential to perform better than some glass-ceramic materials.
目的:在这里,我们旨在比较两种加工策略对CAD/CAM材料的边缘强度的影响,采用环强度试验在模型球圆柱牙冠,结合有限元分析。材料和方法:选择5种CAD/CAM材料用于单个后牙冠,包括二硅酸锂(IPS e.max®CAD)、硅酸锂(Suprinity®PC)、聚合物渗透陶瓷支架(Enamic®)和两种间接树脂复合材料(Grandio®Blocs和Lava™Ultimate)。采用CAD软件在几何基台上建立了一个球圆柱模型冠,并使用Cerec MC XL系统根据两种可用的协议进行加工:粗快和细慢。采用新颖的环强度试验对试件进行断裂,并用有限元法对试件进行分析,得到试件的内边缘强度。使用威布尔统计对数据进行评估。结果:加工策略不影响任何修复材料的边际强度。陶瓷材料在外缘显示出较高的切屑密度,但这并没有降低内缘强度。IPS e.max®CAD的边际强度最高,而Enamic®和Lava™Ultimate的边际强度最低。Grandio®Blocs表现出比Suprinity®PC更高的性能。结论:与精细快速加工策略相比,Cerec MC XL中可用的粗快速加工策略不会降低所评估的CAD/CAD材料的边际强度。根据材料的不同,树脂复合材料有可能比一些玻璃陶瓷材料表现得更好。