ceramic restorations
Recently Published Documents

The use of PDT in prosthodontics as a disinfection protocol can eradicate bacteria from tooth surfaces by causing the death of the microorganisms to which the photosensitizer binds, absorbing the energy of laser light during irradiation. The aim of the study was to investigate the capacity of PDT to increase the bond strength of full ceramic restorations. In this study, 45 extracted human teeth were prepared for veneers, crowns, and inlays and contaminated with Streptococcus mutans. Tooth surfaces decontamination was performed using a diode laser and methylene blue as a photosensitizer. The disinfection effect and the impact on tensile bond strength were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and pull-out tests of the cemented ceramic prosthesis. Results show that the number of bacteria was reduced from colonized prepared tooth surfaces, and the bond strength was increased when PDT was used. In conclusion, the present study indicates that using PDT as a protocol before the final adhesive cementation of ceramic restorations could be a promising approach, with outstanding advantages over conventional methods.

Dental caries is among the most prevalent chronic diseases of childhood, affecting larger part of children and adults. Non-treated enamel caries can lead to destruction and then spreads into the underlying softer and sensitive dentine layer. Dental restorative materials are applied to treat and reconstruct damaged teeth clinically and recover their functions. Currently, there are various dental restorative materials available, and many appropriate materials are used to restore dental carious teeth. The applicability of biomimetic principles can elicit innovations in restorative dentistry for tooth conservation and preservation. There are three types of materials commonly used in dental restorations: resin, alloys, and ceramic. During the past decade, zirconia-based ceramics have been successfully introduced into the clinic due to acceptable biocompatibility, lower price compared with gold restorations, and better appearance than traditional metal-ceramic restorations. Recently, zirconia restoration is an acceptable treatment option in restorative dentistry and a developing trend in esthetic dentistry.

Currently, ceramics based on solid solutions of zirconium dioxide tetragonal structure are common biomedical materials. In commercially common ceramics of orthopedic dentistry based on zirconium dioxide, the stabilization of the tetragonal shape is achieved by the introduction of yttrium or cerium cations. As a result of this scientific work, a ceramic material based on nanopowders of a system of zirconium dioxide and ytterbium oxide with high strength parameters has been developed. The results of the conducted research allow us to recommend the new Yb–TZP ceramics as an alternative to Y–TZP ceramic materials for restorations in orthopedic dentistry.

Abstract Background/purpose How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate. Materials and methods A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four different types (inlay or onlay, veneers (Vs), single crowns (SCs), and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)), were used. All were made of lithium disilicate (IPS e.Max CAD) with Cerec Inlab CAD/CAM system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). They were reported by dentists and entered in the database of the private B&R Dental Center between March 2015 and June 2020 and assessed retrospectively up to a period of 5 years based on the following parameters: failure rate and cause of failures (ceramic fracture, debonding, marginal adaptation, color match, endodontic intervention, periodontal disease, and secondary caries). Failure distribution according to gender, arch, and teeth type was also evaluated. The time-dependent time-to-failure/complication and their differences were calculated in months according to the Kaplan Meier and log-rank tests. The Chi-squared test (p 0.05) was used to assess the variations in causes of failure rates between different restorations. Results Kaplan Meier test showed overall cumulative survival probability of lithium disilicate restorations for up to years was 85.08%. Inlay/onlay and Vs ceramic restorations showed highest cumulative survival probability (99.4%, 98.6, respectively). FPDs had the least cumulative survival probability (52.9%) which was significantly (P < 0.00001) higher than for other ceramic restorations using the log-rank test. Moreover, overall time-dependent time-to-failure/complication occurred after 52.373 months according to Kaplan–Meier (CI: lower bound: 51.875 months; upper bound: 52.871 months). Ceramic fracture in both FPDs and SCs (27.6% and 26.6%, respectively) and debonding in Vs (12.7%) were significant as the main reasons for failure (P = 0.000). The failure rate was significantly higher for the maxillary arch than the mandibular arch (P = 0.021). Fracture and marginal discrepancy were more frequent in the molar region (77.5% and 14.75%, respectively) and significantly higher here than in the anterior and premolar regions (P = 0.000). Conclusion The medium-term performance of lithium disilicate is ideal. Ceramic fracture was the most common cause of failure in SCs and FPDs. FPDs presented with the highest failure rate based on evaluation for up to 5 years.

Abstract Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi2 test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

Introduction. Patient`s satisfaction is considered to be an important indicator of the quality of dental care. Nowadays, the evaluation of the effectiveness of dental treatment outcomes is also based on patients’ subjective perception of improvement in such an important parameter as their quality of life. The aim of this study is to evaluate the dynamics oral health impact factor rate (OHIP-49) of patients of different age and sex on the choice of material for front teeth restoration. Materials and methods. The study involved individuals needed front teeth restoration. Then they were divided into three groups: the first group included patients who received treatment with leucite glass veneers (IPS Empress); the second group included patients having restorations with EX3 fieldspathic ceramic veneers; the third group included patients who received light-curing composite resin direct restorations EsthetX. Results. The data obtained demonstrated that the improvement in the parameter “oral health impact on the quality of life” was more common among women than among men. Middle-aged patients also noted a more significant improvement in quality of life after their teeth restoration. Though the improvement in quality of life evaluation was reported for all parameters related to the OHIP-49 questionnaire, the improvement of psychological condition was proved to be the most significant. Conclusions. Considering data obtained from the study of oral health impact on the quality of life, the patients with the significant decrease in quality of life (over 65 scores by OHIP-49) are recommended to have full ceramic leucite glass of fieldspatic ceramic restorations in order to achieve maximally long-termed and good improvement of life quality, especially in psychological aspects.

Dental ceramics are well known for restoring the function and aesthetic of lost or damaged teeth. Understanding these materials’ mechanical and aesthetic properties can make a suitable choice for those materials. The longevity of dental ceramics depends on several factors, including manufacturing method, clinical process, and the oral cavity’s aqueous environment. Failure mechanisms in restorative ceramics are complex and a combination of several factors. Different microstructures in the crystalline phase will involve the propagation of cracks and eventually the fatigue of ceramic materials. Large grains reduce mechanical performance compared to small grain sizes. Aesthetic materials used for veneering are weaker than the core materials and fail when even subjected to small loads. The soft bonding in the core–veneer interface and possible residual stresses created during the veneering method are drawbacks of these systems. Studies on the mechanical behavior of these materials have grown significantly in recent years and provide helpful information about static and fatigue experimentation and the failure behavior of various materials used in dental crowns.