Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(02): 191-198
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_349_17
Original Article
European Journal of Dentistry

Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars

Ludmilla Azevedo Linhares
1   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
,
Larissa Fernanda Pottmaier
1   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
,
Guilherme Carpena Lopes
1   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of ceramic veneers and composite resin veneers with and without dental preparation. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10): Group NPR = no dental preparation and direct veneer with 0.2 mm thick composite resin (Amelogen Plus, Ultradent); Group NPC = no dental preparation and 0.2 mm thick lithium disilicate ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group P2C = Tooth preparation of 0.2 mm and 0.2 mm thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press); and Group P5C = Tooth preparation of 0.5 mm and 0.5 mm-thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press). In all groups, the restorations covered 1 mm of the occlusal surface of the buccal cusp, and the thickness of this area was the same of the buccal area (0.2 mm or 0.5 mm). After the luting procedure, all groups were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C) and subjected to fracture resistance test under compression (Instron 4444 with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min). The mode of failure analysis was performed under a ×10 magnification. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test (P < 0.05). Results: The mean fracture resistance (men ± standard deviation) was NPR = 690.33 ± 233, NPC = 790.52 ± 408, P2C = 1131.34 ± 341, and P5C = 983.56 ± 202. There were significant differences of the fracture resistance values between all groups (P = 0.013). NPR and NPC groups showed mean values of fracture resistance significantly lower than P2C. However, P5C presented intermediate values without a significant difference from the other groups. The mode of failure for all groups was mixed (60%), cohesive failures (20%), root failures (15%), and adhesive failures (5%). Conclusion: Minimally invasive tooth preparation (0.2-mm) allowed to achieve higher fracture resistance in premolars restored with lithium disilicate ceramic veneers. Attention should be given to the 0.5 mm preparation since catastrophic fractures only happened when this preparation depth was performed.

Key words:

Ceramic veneers - fracture resistance - lithium disilicate - mode of failure - resin composite
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Gürel G. The Science and Art of Porcelain Laminate Veneers. 1st. ed Chicago: Quintessence Books; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98: 389-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gürel G. Porcelain laminate veneers: Minimal tooth preparation by design. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51: 419-31 ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Magne P, Belser U. Bonded Porcelain Restorations in the Anterior Dentition: A Biomimetic Approach. 1st. ed Chicago: Quintessence; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry. 3rd. ed Chicago: Quintessence Books; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Layton DM, Clarke M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26: 111-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 79-85
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Gurel G, Sesma N, Calamita MA, Coachman C, Morimoto S. Influence of enamel preservation on failure rates of porcelain laminate veneers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 33: 31-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burke FJ. Survival rates for porcelain laminate veneers with special reference to the effect of preparation in dentin: A literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012; 24: 257-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shaini FJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation over a period of 6.5 years. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 553-9
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Granell-Ruiz M, Fons-Font A, Labaig-Rueda C, Martínez-González A, Román-Rodríguez JL, Solá-Ruiz MF. et al. Aclinical longitudinal study 323 porcelain laminate veneers. Period of study from 3 to 11 years. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: e531-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rouse JS, Robbins JW. Porcelain veneers. In Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. editor Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry. 3rd. ed Chicago: Quintessence Books; 2006: 463-87
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Weinberg LA. Tooth preparation for porcelain laminates. N Y State Dent J 1989; 55: 25-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dumfahrt H. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: Part I – Clinical procedure. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 505-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Radz GM. Minimum thickness anterior porcelain restorations. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 353-70 ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Okida RC, Filho AJ, Barao VA, Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC. The use of fragments of thin veneers as a restorative therapy for anterior teeth disharmony: A case report with 3 years of follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13: 416-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Soares PV, Spini PH, Carvalho VF, Souza PG, Gonzaga RC, Tolentino AB. et al. Esthetic rehabilitation with laminated ceramic veneers reinforced by lithium disilicate. Quintessence Int 2014; 45: 129-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: A review of the literature. J Dent 2000; 28: 163-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 da Costa DC, Coutinho M, de Sousa AS, Ennes JP. A meta-analysis of the most indicated preparation design for porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15: 215-20
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Soares CJ, Martins LR, Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes Neto AJ. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95: 421-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Albanesi RB, Pigozzo MN, Sesma N, Laganá DC, Morimoto S. Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 52: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Castelnuovo J, Tjan AH, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 171-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chun YH, Raffelt C, Pfeiffer H, Bizhang M, Saul G, Blunck U. et al. Restoring strength of incisors with veneers and full ceramic crowns. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12: 45-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmidt KK, Chiayabutr Y, Phillips KM, Kois JC. Influence of preparation design and existing condition of tooth structure on load to failure of ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105: 374-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27: 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, Baratieri LN. In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104: 149-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Perdigão J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003; 15: 32-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lopes GC. Commentary: Effect of enamel bevel on the clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed in non-carious lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 357-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Atsu SS, Aka PS, Kucukesmen HC, Kilicarslan MA, Atakan C. Age-related changes in tooth enamel as measured by electron microscopy: Implications for porcelain laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 336-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gresnigt MM, Özcan M, van den Houten ML, Schipper L, Cune MS. Fracture strength, failure type and weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 607-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M. et al. Acritical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84: 118-32
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Bates JF, Stafford GD, Harrison A. Masticatory function – A review of the literature. III. Masticatory performance and efficiency. J Oral Rehabil 1976; 3: 57-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Waltimo A, Könönen M. Maximal bite force and its association with signs and symptoms of craniomandibular disorders in young Finnish non-patients. Acta Odontol Scand 1995; 53: 254-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pallis K, Griggs JA, Woody RD, Guillen GE, Miller AW. Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 561-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kois DE, Isvilanonda V, Chaiyabutr Y, Kois JC. Evaluation of fracture resistance and failure risks of posterior partial coverage restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 110-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: Historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (Suppl. 01) 84-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar