Brittleness index of machinable dental materials and its relation to the marginal chipping factor

OBJECTIVES: The machinability of a material can be measured with the calculation of its brittleness index (BI). It is possible that different materials with different BI could produce restorations with varied marginal integrity. The degree of marginal chipping of a milled restoration can be estimated by the calculation of the marginal chipping factor (CF). The aim of this study is to investigate any possible correlation between the BI of machinable dental materials and the CF of the final restorations. METHODS: The CERECTM system was used to mill a wide range of materials used with that system; namely the Paradigm MZ100TM (3M/ESPE), Vita Mark II (VITA), ProCAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent) and IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent). A Vickers hardness Tester was used for the calculation of BI, while for the calculation of CF the percentage of marginal chipping of crowns prepared with bevelled marginal angulations was estimated. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that Paradigm MZ100 had the lowest BI and CF, while IPS e.max CAD demonstrated the highest BI and CF. Vita Mark II and ProCAD had similar BI and CF and were lying between the above materials. Statistical analysis of the results showed that there is a perfect positive correlation between BI and CF for all the materials. CONCLUSIONS: The BI and CF could be both regarded as indicators of a material’s machinability. Within the limitations of this study it was shown that as the BI increases so does the potential for marginal chipping, indicating that the BI of a material can be used as a predictor of the CF

Evaluation of the marginal fit of three margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM

OBJECTIVES: To examine the marginal fit of resin composite crowns manufactured with the CEREC 3 system employing three different margin designs; bevel, chamfer and shoulder, by means of a replica technique and a luting agent. METHODS: Three master casts were fabricated from an impression of a typodont molar tooth and a full-coverage crown prepared with a marginal finish of a bevel, a chamfer and a shoulder. Each cast was replicated 10 times (n = 10). Scanning of the replicas and crown designing was performed using the CEREC ScanTM system. The crowns were milled from Paradigm MZ100TM composite resin blocks. The marginal fit of the crowns was evaluated with a replica technique (AquasilTM LV, Dentsply), and with a resin composite cement (RelyXTM Unicem, AplicapTM) and measured with a travelling microscope. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: For the replica technique the average marginal gaps recorded were: Bevel Group 105±34 mm, Chamfer Group 94±27 mm and Shoulder Group 91±22 mm. For the resin composite cement the average marginal gaps were: Bevel Group 102±28 mm, Chamfer Group 91±11 mm and Shoulder Group 77±8 mm. Two-way ANOVA analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups of finishing lines regardless of the cementation technique used. CONCLUSIONS: The marginal gap of resin composite crowns manufactured with the CEREC 3 system is within the range of clinical acceptance, regardless of the finishing line prepared or the cementation technique used

Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to composite submitted to different surface pretreatments

Objectives: Extensively destroyed teeth are commonly restored with composite resin before cavity preparation for indirect restorations. The longevity of the restoration can be related to the proper bonding of the resin cement to the composite. This study aimed to evaluate the microshear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements to composite resin. Material and Methods: Composite discs were subject to one of six different surface pretreatments: none (control), 35% phosphoric acid etching for 30 seconds (PA), application of silane (silane), PA + silane, PA + adhesive, or PA + silane + adhesive (n = 6). A silicone mold containing a cylindrical orifice (1 mm2 diameter) was placed over the composite resin. RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) or BisCem (Bisco Inc.) self-adhesive resin cement was inserted into the orifices and light-cured. Self-adhesive cement cylinders were submitted to shear loading. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Results: Independent of the cement used, the PA + Silane + Adhesive group showed higher microshear bond strength than those of the PA and PA + Silane groups. There was no difference among the other treatments. Unicem presented higher bond strength than BisCem for all experimental conditions. Conclusions: Pretreatments of the composite resin surface might have an effect on the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to this substrate