目的:本研究旨在评估整体氧化锆层压贴面(MZLV)与二硅酸锂层压贴面(LDLV)相比的可行性。
方法:60个树脂复制品,每个准备的深度为0.5毫米,0.7mm,和1毫米,是使用丙烯酸牙齿的3D打印机生产的。这些厚度的层压单板由预烧结的整体式氧化锆(第三代)和二硅酸锂块研磨而成。使用直径为110μm的二氧化硅改性氧化铝颗粒和陶瓷底漆对MZLV的凹版表面进行了空气磨蚀处理,而LDLV用蚀刻剂凝胶蚀刻,并用陶瓷底漆处理,然后用树脂水泥胶结。使用立体显微镜评估垂直边际差异(VMD),并使用万能试验机进行了负荷失效试验。在断裂表面上宏观评估失效模式。数据采用双向方差分析和Bonferroni校正(α=0.05)进行统计学分析。
结果:与所有厚度的MZLV样品相比,LDLV样品表现出明显更大的VMD,尤其是在宫颈,腭,和平均数据。在LDLV组中,0.7mm和1.0mm厚度的断裂载荷值相似,而对于0.5毫米的厚度,明显较低。在MZLV组中,与LDLV相比,0.7mm和1.0mm厚度的断裂载荷值较低,但较高的0.5毫米厚度。
结论:材料选择和修复厚度显著影响层板修复的成功。与LDLV相比,MZLV通常表现出优越的垂直边缘拟合,在不同的厚度上具有不同的破坏载荷值。与LDLV的修复骨折相比,MZLV的脱粘临床处理更简单。
结论:考虑临床因素,对于厚度为0.5mm的这种修复,MZLV可以是LDLV的优选选择。
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) compared to lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV).
METHODS: Sixty resin replicas, each prepared with depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, were produced using a 3D printer from acrylic teeth. Laminate veneers of these thicknesses were milled from pre-sintered monolithic zirconia (3rd generation) and lithium disilicate blocks. The intaglio surface of MZLV was treated with air abrasion using 110 μm diameter silica-modified aluminium oxide particles and ceramic primer, while LDLV was etched with etchant gel and treated with the ceramic primer before cementation with resin cement. Vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) was assessed using a stereomicroscope, and a load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated macroscopically on fractured surfaces. Data were analysed statistically using Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: LDLV samples exhibited significantly larger VMD compared to MZLV samples across all thicknesses, especially in cervical, palatal, and mean data. Within the LDLV group, load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses were similar, whereas for 0.5 mm thickness, it was significantly lower. In the MZLV group, load-to-fracture values were lower for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses compared to LDLV, but higher for 0.5 mm thickness.
CONCLUSIONS: Material choice and restoration thickness significantly influence laminate veneer restorations\' success. MZLV generally exhibits superior vertical marginal fit compared to LDLV, with varying load-to-failure values across different thicknesses. Clinical management of debonding in MZLV is simpler compared to restoration fracture in LDLV.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering clinical factors, MZLV may be a preferable option to LDLV for this restoration with the thickness of 0.5 mm.