Load-bearing capacity, internal accuracy and time-efficiency of heat-pressed, milled and 3D-printed lithium disilicate ultra-thin occlusal veneers

Objectives

The primary aim of this in vitro study was to compare the load-bearing capacity of lithium disilicate occlusal veneers, fabricated via different manufacturing processes. Secondary objectives included assessing internal accuracy and production time-efficiency.

Methods

Four fabrication methods for ultra-thin lithium disilicate occlusal veneers on extracted human molars with simulated erosive defects were compared (n = 20/group): CAM: milled lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD); HPR: heat-pressed lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) out of a milled PMMA template (Ddpmma CAST); 3DP: 3D-printed lithium disilicate (experimental lithium disilicate); PTE: heat-pressed lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) out of a 3D-printed template (SilaPrint cast). Internal accuracy was measured prior to thermo-mechanical aging, followed by static loading to measure the load-bearing capacity (F_max). Fabrication time (time-efficiency) was also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found in median load-bearing capacities (F_max) between the groups (KW p = 0.5902): CAM 1821 N, HPR 1896 N, 3DP 2003 N, PTE 1687 N. Significant differences were found in internal accuracy between the groups that employed printing processes (3DP, PTE) and all other groups in margins (p < 0.001), cusps (p < 0.0018), and fossae (p < 0.0346). The time-efficiency measurements indicated an increase in fabrication time, starting from CAM 67.2 ± 5.8 min, followed by HPR 200.8 ± 33.0 min, PTE 289.2 ± 38.7 min, and peaking with the highest duration observed for 3DP 701.6 ± 8.1 min.

Significance

The fabrication method of ultra-thin lithium disilicate occlusal veneers does not significantly impact their load-bearing capacity, but affects the clinical fit and adaptation of the veneers.