In vitro study of the fracture resistance of monolithic lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia, and lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia for three-unit fixed dental prostheses.
- Author:
Jae Won CHOI
1
;
So Yeun KIM
;
Ji Hyeon BAE
;
Eun Bin BAE
;
Jung Bo HUH
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Fixed dental prostheses; Lithium disilicate; Zirconia; Lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia; Fracture resistance
- MeSH: Alloys; Bicuspid; Ceramics; Dental Prosthesis*; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Glass; In Vitro Techniques*; Lithium*; Mastication; Molar; Resin Cements
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2017;9(4):244-251
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine fracture resistance and failure modes of three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made of lithium disilicate pressed on zirconia (LZ), monolithic lithium disilicate (ML), and monolithic zirconia (MZ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Co-Cr alloy three-unit metal FDPs model with maxillary first premolar and first molar abutments was fabricated. Three different FDPs groups, LZ, ML, and MZ, were prepared (n = 5 per group). The three-unit FDPs designs were identical for all specimens and cemented with resin cement on the prepared metal model. The region of pontic in FDPs was given 50,000 times of cyclic preloading at 2 Hz via dental chewing simulator and received a static load until fracture with universal testing machine fixed at 10°. The fracture resistance and mode of failure were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni's correction (α=0.05/3=0.017). RESULTS: A significant difference in fracture resistance was found between LZ (4943.87 ± 1243.70 N) and ML (2872.61 ± 658.78 N) groups, as well as between ML and MZ (4948.02 ± 974.51 N) groups (P<.05), but no significant difference was found between LZ and MZ groups (P>.05). With regard to fracture pattern, there were three cases of veneer chipping and two interfacial fractures in LZ group, and complete fracture was observed in all the specimens of ML and MZ groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to monolithic lithium disilicate FDPs, monolithic zirconia FDPs and lithium disilicate glass ceramics pressed on zirconia-based FDPs showed superior fracture resistance while they manifested comparable fracture resistances.
