目的:评估使用两种常规预结晶和两种完全结晶的焦硅酸锂陶瓷材料制造的椅边计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)贴面的断裂载荷。
方法:用不同的焦硅酸锂品牌制作了75个上颌右中切牙的椅旁CAD-CAM贴面(15个标本/组):(1)IPSe.maxCAD;(2)AmberMill;(3)CerecTessera;(4)n!ceStraumann;(5)GCInitialLiSiBlock。修复用树脂胶凝水泥(Variolink美学,Ivoclar)到3D打印的树脂模具。粘结的修复体接受5000个热循环,然后加载直至断裂。统计学分析包括单向ANOVA。
结果:常规预结晶e.maxCAD显示出最高的断裂载荷值(640N),其次是完全结晶的n!ceStraumann(547N),预结晶CerecTessera(503N),预结晶AmberMill(476N),完全结晶的GC初始LiSi块(431N)分别显示最低值。当将最近的二硅酸锂陶瓷材料的断裂载荷与e.max组进行比较时,作为控制,注意到显著差异。LiSi嵌段GC基团,特别是,具有相当高的平均差值(208.867,p<0.001,95%CI[89.63,328.10]),AmberMill组(164.200,p=0.002,95%CI[44.96,283.44])和CERECTessera组(137.533,p=0.016,95%CI[18.30,256.77])也是如此。e.max和n!ceStraumann组的平均得分没有统计学上的显着差异(92.933,p=0.198,95%CI[-26.30,212.17])。这些发现暗示,与e.maxCAD组相比,最近的二硅酸锂贴面的临床表现有所不同。
结论:用于上颌中切牙的椅边CAD-CAM焦硅酸锂贴面的骨折负荷根据陶瓷品牌的类型而有所不同。传统的预结晶e.maxCAD显示出比最近的预结晶和完全结晶的焦硅酸锂材料更高的断裂载荷,强调根据期望的临床结果选择正确产品的重要性。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fracture load of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) veneers fabricated with two conventional pre-crystallized and two fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic materials.
METHODS: Seventy-five chairside CAD-CAM veneers (15 specimens/group) for maxillary right central incisors were fabricated with different lithium disilicate brands: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Cerec Tessera; (4) n!ce Straumann; and (5) GC Initial LiSi Block. Restorations were cemented with resin luting cement (Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar) to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations received 5000 thermal cycles and then were loaded until fracture. Statistical analysis included One-Way ANOVA.
RESULTS: Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed the highest fracture load value (640 N), followed by fully-crystallized n!ce Straumann (547 N), pre-crystallized Cerec Tessera (503 N), pre-crystallized Amber Mill (476 N), respectively; fully-crystallized GC Initial LiSi Block (431 N) displayed the lowest values. When comparing the fracture load of recent lithium disilicate ceramic material to the e.max group, which acted as the control, significant differences were noted. The LiSi Block GC group, in particular, had considerably higher mean difference values (208.867, p < 0.001, 95% CI [89.63, 328.10]), as did the Amber Mill group (164.200, p = 0.002, 95% CI [44.96, 283.44]) and CEREC Tessera group (137.533, p = 0.016, 95% CI [18.30, 256.77]). The e.max and n!ce Straumann groups had no statistically significant differences in mean scores (92.933, p = 0.198, 95% CI [-26.30, 212.17]). These findings imply that the clinical performance of recent lithium disilicate veneers varies when compared to the e.max CAD group.
CONCLUSIONS: The fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate veneers for maxillary central incisors varies according to the type of ceramic brands. Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed higher fracture load than the recent pre- and fully-crystallized lithium disilicate materials, emphasizing the significance of choosing the right product based on the desired clinical outcome.