Fracture Resistance of Laboratory Composite Versus All-Ceramic Restorations in Class II Inlay Cavity Preparations: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND

A posterior tooth's occlusal surfaces and the proximal surface can be restored by using an inlay, which is an intra-crown cast reconstruction without affecting the cusps of the tooth. When an inlay is prepared using an indirect approach, issues with traditional filling approaches, including poor morphology of the occlusal aspect or proximal aspect, inadequate resistance to wear, or subpar mechanical qualities of the directly inserted filler substance, are overcome.

AIM

The current study was conducted in order to compare and assess the resistance to fracture of dental materials used in the preparation of inlay restorations indirectly, like composite restorations prepared by laboratories indirectly, inlays formed indirectly of monolithic translucent ceramic derived from zirconia, and inlays formed indirectly of traditional monolithic ceramic derived from zirconia.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For the investigation, 100 human premolars of the maxilla that were extracted recently were chosen. A self-polymerizing acrylic resin was used to incorporate the tooth roots in a band made up of polyvinyl chloride up to 2 mm below the cement-enamel junction. The dimension of the band was 1.3 cm by 1.9 cm. Five categories of 20 specimens of such teeth were formed. Category one, featuring teeth in good condition, acted as the positive control category. The remaining four categories of teeth received inlay tooth preparation. The research samples underwent thermocycling after having been preserved for a full week following the cementation of inlay replacements. Then, in a universal testing apparatus, every sample endured axial compressive force with a metal globe delivered vertically at a crosshead rate of 1 mm/minute. The amount of force necessary to cause a fracture was measured in Newtons (N).

RESULTS

The mean values of resistance against fracture in specimens in categories 1-5 were 1208.87 N, 614.89 N, 733.05 N, 1179.14 N, and 1148.49 N, respectively. The values of fracture resistance in specimens where an inlay cavity preparation was done but not filled were lower than those in traditional monolithic ceramic derived from zirconia and tooth specimens with inlays formed of monolithic translucent ceramic derived from zirconia, and the difference was significant statistically (p=0.001). The values of fracture resistance in composite inlay restorations prepared by laboratories were indirectly lower than those of monolithic ceramic derived from zirconia and tooth specimens with inlays formed of monolithic translucent ceramic derived from zirconia, and the difference was significant statistically (p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Within the constraints of the current investigation, we can state that indirect zirconia-based ceramic products offer adequate fracture resistance, but additional research is needed to determine how well these materials hold up under different types of pressures before employing them in clinical tooth restoration.