• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.271-277
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This study was to evaluate the marginal fit of two CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown systems compared to lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Shoulder and deep chamfer margin were formed on each acrylic resin tooth model of a maxillary first premolar. Two CAD-CAM systems (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia and ZENOSTAR$^{(R)}$ZR translucent) and lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) crowns were made (n=16). Each crown was bonded to stone dies with resin cement (Rely X Unicem). Marginal gap and absolute marginal discrepancy of crowns were measured using a light microscope equipped with a digital camera (Leica DFC295) magnified by a factor of 100. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey's HSD test were conducted to analyze the significance of crown marginal fit regarding the finish line configuration and the fabrication system. RESULTS. The mean marginal gap of lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) was significantly lower than that of the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia) (P<.05). Both fabrication systems and finish line configurations significantly influenced the absolute marginal discrepancy (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The lithium disilicate glass ceramic crown (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) had significantly smaller marginal gap than the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia). In terms of absolute marginal discrepancy, the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (ZENOSTAR$^{(R)}$ZR translucent) had under-extended margin, whereas the CAD-CAM anatomic contour zirconia crown system (Prettau$^{(R)}$Zirconia) and lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max$^{(R)}$press) had overextended margins.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.184-191
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physical properties of different self-adhesive resin cements and their shear bond strength on dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic and compare these result with that of conventional resin cement. For this study, four self-adhesive resin cements (Rely-X Unicem, Embrace Wetbond, Mexcem, BisCem), one conventional resin cement (Rely-X ARC) and one restorative resin composite (Z-350) were used. In order to evaluate the physical properties, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength were measured. To evaluate the shear bond strength on dentin, each cement was adhered to buccal dentinal surface of extracted human lower molars. Dentin bonding agent was applied after acid etching for groups of Rely-X ARC and Z-350. In order to evaluate the shear bond strength on ceramic, lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS Empress 2) disks were prepared. Only Rely-X ARC and Z-350 groups were pretreated with hydrofluoric acid and silane. And then each resin cement was adhered to ceramic surface in 2 mm diameter. Physical properties and shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing machine. Results were as follows 1. BisCem showed the lowest compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength. (P<0.05) 2. Self-adhesive resin cements showed significantly lower shear bond strength on the dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic than Rely-X ARC and Z-350 (P<0.05) In conclusion, self-adhesive resin cements represent the lower physical properties and shear bond strength than a conventional resin cement.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.75-81
• /
• 2014

Purpose: This study was to compare adaptations of lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns fabricated with different scanning systems. Methods: This study selected the mandibular right first molar as an abutment for experiments and produced 10 working models. Lithium disilicate crowns appropriate for each abutment were produced by using a CEREC$^{(R)}$ CAD/CAM system. The independent t-test was then used to compare and analyze the data obtained from the two groups(${\alpha}$=0.05). Results: Mean(SD) adaptation were $86.93(22.82){\mu}m$ for the InS group, $88.42(26.77){\mu}m$ for the ExS group. They were no statistically significant differences between groups for adaptation(p>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that the accuracy of all investigated optical scanner were satisfactory for clinical use. Further assessment and improvement of the lithium disilicate ceramic for the fabrication of FPDs is evidently still required.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.25-34
• /
• 2020

In recent years, as a burden on tooth preparationduring the processing the laminate veneer treatments to enhance aesthetics, the interests and demands for non-prep laminate veneers are increasing which do not require teeth preparation. Although there are clear limitationsbecause the restorations are fabricated without tooth preparation, there is a clear advantage of non-invasivehealthy teeth. When manufacturing a non-prep laminate veneer, an effective design should be selected according to the aesthetic requirements and intraoral condition because the margin of restorationsshould be determined on the natural tooth surface that isnot prepared. In this article, I would like to presentthe three different designsaccording to the range which teeth are covered, and the advantages and disadvantages of them. Non-prep laminate veneer introduced in this article was fabricated using Lithium disilicate press ingot.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.56-62
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to investigate shade changes in fully- and pre-crystalized CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns after the required and additional firing processes. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred and five crowns of shade A1 with high translucency were milled out of CAD-CAM lithium disilicate blocks and categorized as follows (n = 15): (1) restorations fabricated from Straumann n!ce with no additional sintering process; (2) restorations fabricated from Straumann n!ce with one additional sintering process; (3) restorations fabricated from Straumann n!ce with two additional sintering processes; (4) restorations fabricated from Amber Mill with one sintering process; (5) restorations fabricated from Amber Mill with two sintering processes; (6) restorations fabricated from IPS e.max CAD with one sintering process; (7) restorations fabricated from IPS e.max CAD with two sintering processes. All restorations were evaluated with a color imaging spectrophotometer. RESULTS. All restorations presented some color alteration from the original shade both after a single and after two firing processes. CONCLUSION. The required and additional sintering processes for restorations fabricated with chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate blocks cause an alteration of the original shade selected. Shade A1 high translucency restorations tend to change to a more yellowish B1 shade after a sintering process.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.271-278
• /
• 2019

Purpose: To quantify the effect of the crystallization process on lithium disilicate ceramic crowns that are fabricated using a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing(CAD/CAM) system, and to determine whether they are clinically acceptable by comparing values before and after the crystallization process. Methods: The maxillary first molar was selected as the abutment for the experiments. Ten working models were prepared. Marginal and internal gap of 4 groups of lithium disilicate crowns(n=10) fabricated with conventional method. Comparison was performed using the silicone replica technique and 3D superimposition analysis. The marginal and internal gaps of the restoration were measured before and after the crystallization process of this prosthesis. The average value of each part(the average of values measured before and after the crystallization) was statistically analyzed using paired t-test(α=0.05). Results: The results from the second phase of this research, which compared the average value of the gap between the marginal and internal fits of the lithium disilicate single crown before and after the crystallization process, indicated that the marginal gap was larger and the internal gap was smaller after the crystallization process, and this difference was statistically significant (P<0.05) in all the parts evaluated. Conclusion: While the shrinkage that occurs during crystallization does affect the marginal and internal fit of the prosthesis, it cannot be concluded to be a major effect because the resultant distortion was within the clinically acceptable range.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.9-15
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of lithium disilicate glass ceramic polishing on the strength of the final prosthesis. Methods: Fourteen lithium disilicate glass ceramic specimens were prepared. These were randomly divided into two groups of seven(LPG: low polishing group, HPG: high polishing group). In LPG, SiC paper was sequentially polished using 300, 600, 800, 1000 grit, and the specifications of the test piece were adjusted. HPG was sequentially polished using 300, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1500, and 2000 grit. Two groups of specimens are executed 3- point bending test. Using the statistical program SPSS 22.0, the average values of the strengths of the two groups were compared in the Mann-Whiteney test. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: The mean strength value of HPG was measured at $307.14{\pm}23.28MPa$ significantly higher than LPG(p<0.001). Conclusion : The final polishing of the prosthesis is aesthetically important but has proven to play an important role in the flexural strength, early fracture, and prolongation of the prosthesis.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.9-16
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate ceramic inlay produced by heat pressing that inlay pattern made by subtractive manufacturing and additive manufacturing method. Methods: A mandibular lower first molar that mesial occlusal cavity (MO cavity) die was prepared. After fabricating an epoxy resin model using a silicone impression material, epoxy resin die was scanned with a dental model scanner to design an MO cavity inlay. The designed STL pile was used to fabricate wax patterns and resin patterns, and then lithium disilicate ceramic inlays were fabricated using hot-press method. For the measurement of the marginal and internal gap of the lithium disilicate, silicone replica method was applied, and gap was measured through an optical microscope (x 80). Data were tested for significant differences using the Mann-Whitney Utest. Results: The marginal fit was 103.56±9.92㎛ in the MIL-IN group and 81.57±9.33㎛ in the SLA-IN group, with a significant difference found between the two groups (p<0.05). The internal fit was 120.99±17.52㎛ in the MIL-IN group and 99.18±6.65㎛ in the SLA-IN group, with a significant difference found between the two groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: It is clinically more appropriate to apply the additive manufacturing than subtractive manufacturing method in producing lithium disilicate inlay using CAD/CAM system.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2017

Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of a multi-mode universal adhesive (MUA) containing silane (Single Bond Universal, 3M EPSE) on the bonding of resin cement to lithium disilicate. Materials and Methods: Thirty IPS e.max CAD specimens (Ivoclar Vivadent) were fabricated. The surfaces were treated as follows: Group A, adhesive that did not contain silane (ANS, Porcelain Bonding Resin, Bisco); Group B, silane (S) and ANS; Group C, hydrofluoric acid (HF), S, and ANS; Group D, MUA; Group E, HF and MUA. Dual-cure resin cement (NX3, Kerr) was applied and composite resin cylinders of 0.8 mm in diameter were placed on it before light polymerization. Bonded specimens were stored in water for 24 hours or underwent a 10,000 thermocycling process prior to microshear bond strength testing. The data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (p < 0.05). Results: Bond strength varied significantly among the groups (p < 0.05), except for Groups A and D. Group C showed the highest initial bond strength ($27.1{\pm}6.9MPa$), followed by Group E, Group B, Group D, and Group A. Thermocycling significantly reduced bond strength in Groups B, C, and E (p < 0.05). Bond strength in Group C was the highest regardless of the storage conditions (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Surface treatment of lithium disilicate using HF and silane increased the bond strength of resin cement. However, after thermocycling, the silane in MUA did not help achieve durable bond strength between lithium disilicate and resin cement, even when HF was applied.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2017

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of adhesive luting on the fracture resistance of zirconia compared to that of a composite resin and a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Materials and Methods: The specimens (dimension: $2mm{\times}2mm{\times}25mm$) of the composite resin, lithium disilicate glass ceramic, and yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) were prepared. These were then divided into nine groups: three non-luting groups, three non-adhesive luting groups, and three adhesive luting groups, for each restorative material. In the non-luting groups, specimens were placed on the bovine tooth without any luting agents. In the non-adhesive luting groups, only zinc phosphate cement was used for luting the specimen to the bovine tooth. In the adhesive luting groups, specimens were pretreated, and the adhesive luting procedure was performed using a self-adhesive resin cement. For all the groups, a flexural test was performed using universal testing machine, in which the fracture resistance was measured by recording the force at which the specimen was fractured. Results: The fracture resistance after adhesive luting increased by approximately 29% in the case of the composite resin, 26% in the case of the lithium disilicate glass ceramic, and only 2% in the case of Y-TZP as compared to non-adhesive luting. Conclusions: The fracture resistance of Y-TZP did not increased significantly after adhesive luting as compared to that of the composite resin and the lithium disilicate glass ceramic.