Title: 0883 - Fracture Strength of Three CAD-CAM Materials for Inlay Restorations
Carolina Mesa (Presenter)
Fundacion Universitaria CIEO UniCIEO
Maria Alejandra Gorron, Fundacion Universitaria CIEO UniCIEO
Julieth Giselle Palacio, Fundacion Universitaria CIEO UniCIEO
Edgar Torres, Fundacion Universitaria CIEO UniCIEO
Objectives: To compare the fracture strength of inlay restorations fabricated in three CAD-CAM materials (IPS e.max® CAD, VITA Enamic®, and CERASMART™ GC).
Methods: Experimental in vitro study. The research protocol was approved by IRB. Fifteen (15) healthy upper premolars were selected and prepared for occlusal-mesial inlays. The specimens were then scanned and duplicated in a photopolymerization resin (Formlabs® Flexible) obtaining three (3) identical copies of each premolar, total sample (n=45). Inlays were scanned and milled in three different CAD-CAM materials and then distributed into three groups: (n=15) IPS e.max® CAD (Em), (n=15) VITA Enamic® (En), and (n=15) CERASMART™GC (C). Subsequently, they were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX® U-200 3M-ESPE). Teeth were placed in an acrylic resin (Veracril® New Stetic), generating a calibrated space of 0.3mm, using smooth casting wax. PVS impression material (Silagum® DMG) was used to fill this space, in order to simulate periodontal ligament. The mechanical test was performed using a universal testing machine (Instron® 5586). A 2.5mm cylindrical rounded-end tip was placed in the functional fossa and load (crosshead speed 0.5 mm/min) was applied until inlay fracture. Statistical analysis was made using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test.
Results: Em inlay restorations reported the highest fracture strength values, while En showed the lowest. Statistically significant differences (p<0,05) were observed when fracture strength of Em (411.825N) was compared with En and C (312.924N, 338.327N respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed when En and C were compared (p>0,05).
Conclusions: Ceramic inlay restorations (IPS e.max® CAD) have higher fracture strength than the hybrid (VITA® Enamic) and polymeric inlays (CERASMART™ GC). All materials evaluated in this study demonstrated clinically acceptable fracture strength values, according to the scientific evidence previously reported.
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONE