Impact of Chemical Aging on the Fracture Resistance of Two Ceramic Materials: Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Mohamed S. Mohamed; Cherif A. Mohsen; Hisham  Katamish

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2020.5155

Authors

Mohamed S. Mohamed Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
Cherif A. Mohsen Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
Hisham Katamish Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.5155

Keywords:

Zirconia, Lithium silicate, Lithium disilicate, Chemical aging, Fracture resistance

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The reason for the development of high strength zirconia is that zirconia offers enough high strength of about 1000 MPa and high strength glass ceramic in the range of 360–400 MPa, to provide safely ceramic options for many indications.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the fracture resistance of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic and lithium disilicate ceramic restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, forty crowns were fabricated by CAD/CAM technology, all samples were divided into two groups (n = 20) according to ceramic material used: Group Z ZLS ceramic (celtra due) and Group L lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (IPS E-MAX). Further subdivided into two subgroups according to the aging procedure (n = 10): (a) Subgroup – ZA: Aging. (b) Subgroup – ZB: No aging. (c) Subgroup – LA: Aging. (d) Subgroup – LB: No aging. All samples were subjected to universal testing machine (Instron) to evaluate the effect of the chemical aging on the fracture resistance.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way ANOVA analysis was used to compare measurements among groups.

RESULTS: ZLS showed higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate, but there was no statistical difference between them. Aging affected on the fracture resistance of two different ceramic materials but within an acceptable range.

CONCLUSION: ZLS gave rise to higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate and aging decrease fracture resistance of both types of ceramic. The postulated hypothecs of this study were zirconia reinforced, lithium silicate will be higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate, and chemical aging will have a huge effect.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Culp L, McLaren EA. Lithium disilicate: The restorative material of multiple options. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010;31(9):716-20. PMid:21197940

Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Augthun M, Spiekermann H. Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate--, alumina-, and zirconia-based three-unit fixed partial dentures: A laboratory study. Int J Prosthod. 2001;14(3):231-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/ jap.2017.9.4.244 PMid:11484570

Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F. Lithium disilicate restorations fatigue testing parameters: A systematic review. J Prosthod. 2016;25(2):116-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12376 PMid:26505638

Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(6):652-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70103-4 PMid:10347352

Zhang Y, Kim JW, Bhowmick S, Thompson VP, Rekow ED. Competition of fracture mechanisms in monolithic dental ceramics: Flat model systems. J Biomed Mater Res Part B. 2009;88(2):402-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31100 PMid:18478533

Guess PC, Schultheis S, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Ferencz JL, Silva NR. All-ceramic systems: Laboratory and clinical performance. Dent Clin. 2011;55(2):333-52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.005 PMid:21473997

International Organization for Standardization. International Organization for Standardization No. 6872, Dentistry-ceramic Materials. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2008.

Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R, Liu R, Ma S, Zhou Z, et al. Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;35:93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.014 PMid:24762856

Ritter JE. Predicting lifetimes of materials and material structures. Dent Mater. 1995;11(2):142-6. https://doi. org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80050-6 PMid:8621036

Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater. 2016;32(7):908-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.013 PMid:270876

De Backer H, Van Maele G, De Moor N, Van den Berghe L, De Boever J. A 20-year retrospective survival study of fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthod. 2006;19(2):143-53. PMid:16602362

Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: A retrospective study. Int J Prosthod. 2008;21(4):307-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997. tb00266.x PMid:18717088

Clayton JA, Green E. Roughness of pontic materials and dental plaque. J Prosthet Dent. 1970;23(4):407-11. https://doi. org/10.1016/0022-3913(70)90007-7 PMid:5264825

De Jager N, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL. The influence of surface roughness on porcelain strength. Dent Mater. 2000;16(6):381-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00030-0 PMid:10967186

Bollenl CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258-69. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-33 PMid:11696906

Milleding P, Haraldsson C, Karlsson S. Ion leaching from dental ceramics during static in vitro corrosion testing. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;61(4):541-50.