Comparison of 16.9-year survival of pressed acid etched e.max lithium disilicate glass ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior teeth: Performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position, age, sex, and thickness of ceramic material

The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Focusing principally on the most commonly used materials, lithium disilicate and zirconia, the aim of Part 1 of this article is to compare the mechanical properties and aesthetics of these two materials. For strength, zirconia possesses superior physical properties when compared with lithium disilicate. However, in terms of aesthetics, lithium disilicate holds advantages. With both materials having different microstructures, the same cementation protocols cannot be used. Other contemporary ceramic materials are briefly reviewed. Part 2 reviews the latest clinical research on their clinical performance. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Awareness of which ceramic material performs optimally on anterior and posterior teeth is clinically important.

Download Full-text

Influence of Ceramic Thickness and Ceramic Materials on Fracture Resistance of Posterior Partial Coverage Restorations

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/12-459-l ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 211-217 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

EM Bakeman ◽

N Rego ◽

Y Chaiyabutr ◽

JC Kois

Keyword(s):

Glass Ceramic ◽

Fracture Resistance ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Ceramic Materials ◽

Tooth Structure ◽

Partial Coverage ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Ceramic Thickness ◽

Ceramic Restorations

SUMMARY This study evaluated the influence of ceramic thickness and ceramic materials on fracture resistance of posterior partial coverage ceramic restorations. Forty extracted molars were allocated into four groups (n=10) to test for two variables: 1) the thickness of ceramic (1 mm or 2 mm) and 2) the ceramic materials (a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic [IPS e.max] or leucite-reinforced glass ceramic [IPS Empress]). All ceramic restorations were luted with resin cement (Variolink II) on the prepared teeth. These luted specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine, in the compression mode, with a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey Honestly Significantly Different multiple comparison test (α =0.05). The fracture resistance revealed a significant effect for materials (p<0.001); however, the thickness of ceramic was not significant (p=0.074), and the interaction between the thickness of ceramic and the materials was not significant (p=0.406). Mean (standard deviation) fracture resistance values were as follows: a 2-mm thickness of a lithium disilicate bonded to tooth structure (2505 [401] N) revealed a significantly higher fracture resistance than did a 1-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced (1569 [452] N) and a 2-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced ceramic bonded to tooth structure (1716 [436] N) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in fracture resistance values between a lithium disilicate ceramic at 1-mm thickness (2105 [567] N) and at 2-mm thickness. Using a lithium disilicate glass ceramic for partial coverage restoration significantly improved fracture resistance compared to using a leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The thickness of ceramic had no significant effect on fracture resistance when the ceramics were bonded to the underlying tooth structure.

Download Full-text

Ceramics in dentistry: which material is appropriate for the anterior or posterior dentition? Part 2: recent clinical research

Dental Update ◽

10.12968/denu.2021.48.8.690 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 48 (8) ◽

pp. 690-696

Author(s):

Loo Chien Win ◽

Peter Sands ◽

Stephen J Bonsor ◽

FJ Trevor Burke

Keyword(s):

Clinical Research ◽

Physical Properties ◽

Ceramic Material ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Ceramic Materials ◽

Posterior Teeth

The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic material for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Part 1 compared the physical properties and aesthetics of lithium disilicate and zirconia materials. This article explores recent clinical research on these materials. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Awareness of which ceramic material performs optimally on anterior and posterior teeth is clinically important.

Download Full-text

Rehabilitation of a Severely Worn Dentition with Partial Lithium-disilicate Glass Ceramic Restorations: A Case Report

European Annals of Dental Sciences ◽

10.52037/eads.2021.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ece İrem Oğuz ◽

Semih Berksun

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Glass Ceramic ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Vertical Dimension ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

Anterior Teeth ◽

Occlusal Vertical Dimension ◽

Ceramic Restorations ◽

Laminate Veneers

Rehabilitation of worn dentition is a challenging task because several predisposing factors may be included in the pathogenesis. The treatment options and process should be carefully considered based on the clinical condition and patients’ requirements. This case report represents the esthetic rehabilitation of a 68-year-old patient who exhibited severely worn teeth caused by attrition and erosion. After clinical evaluation, 3 mm increase in occlusal vertical dimension was planned with partial lithium-disilicate ceramic restorations as laminate veneers for anterior teeth and vonlays (onlays with veneer extentions) for posterior teeth in maxilla. The adaptation of the patient to the increased occlusal vertical dimension was tested for 1 month by provisional direct composite restorations. As the patient did not show any discomfort, definitive restorations were completed. The patient was satisfied with the esthetics and functionality of her new dentition.

Download Full-text