Jurado Carlos A, Yeh Jacquelyn S, Vidal Cristina M P, Cho Seok-Hwan, Abuhammoud Salahaldeen
Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2025 Apr;34(4):429-435. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13867. Epub 2024 May 7.
To evaluate the fracture load of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) veneers fabricated with two conventional pre-crystallized and two fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic materials.
Seventy-five chairside CAD-CAM veneers (15 specimens/group) for maxillary right central incisors were fabricated with different lithium disilicate brands: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Cerec Tessera; (4) n!ce Straumann; and (5) GC Initial LiSi Block. Restorations were cemented with resin luting cement (Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar) to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations received 5000 thermal cycles and then were loaded until fracture. Statistical analysis included One-Way ANOVA.
Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed the highest fracture load value (640 N), followed by fully-crystallized n!ce Straumann (547 N), pre-crystallized Cerec Tessera (503 N), pre-crystallized Amber Mill (476 N), respectively; fully-crystallized GC Initial LiSi Block (431 N) displayed the lowest values. When comparing the fracture load of recent lithium disilicate ceramic material to the e.max group, which acted as the control, significant differences were noted. The LiSi Block GC group, in particular, had considerably higher mean difference values (208.867, p < 0.001, 95% CI [89.63, 328.10]), as did the Amber Mill group (164.200, p = 0.002, 95% CI [44.96, 283.44]) and CEREC Tessera group (137.533, p = 0.016, 95% CI [18.30, 256.77]). The e.max and n!ce Straumann groups had no statistically significant differences in mean scores (92.933, p = 0.198, 95% CI [-26.30, 212.17]). These findings imply that the clinical performance of recent lithium disilicate veneers varies when compared to the e.max CAD group.
The fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate veneers for maxillary central incisors varies according to the type of ceramic brands. Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed higher fracture load than the recent pre- and fully-crystallized lithium disilicate materials, emphasizing the significance of choosing the right product based on the desired clinical outcome.
评估使用两种传统预结晶和两种全结晶二硅酸锂陶瓷材料制作的椅旁计算机辅助设计与计算机辅助制造（CAD-CAM）贴面的断裂载荷。
为上颌右中切牙制作75个椅旁CAD-CAM贴面（每组15个样本），使用不同品牌的二硅酸锂：（1）IPS e.max CAD；（2）Amber Mill；（3）Cerec Tessera；（4）n!ce Straumann；（5）GC Initial LiSi Block。修复体用树脂粘结水门汀（Variolink Esthetic，义获嘉）粘结到3D打印的树脂代型上。粘结后的修复体接受5000次热循环，然后加载直至断裂。统计分析采用单因素方差分析。
传统预结晶的e.max CAD显示出最高的断裂载荷值（640 N），其次是全结晶的n!ce Straumann（547 N）、预结晶的Cerec Tessera（503 N）、预结晶的Amber Mill（476 N）；全结晶的GC Initial LiSi Block（431 N）显示出最低值。将近期二硅酸锂陶瓷材料的断裂载荷与作为对照的e.max组进行比较时，发现有显著差异。特别是LiSi Block GC组的平均差值相当高（208.867，p < 0.001，95%可信区间[89.63，328.10]），Amber Mill组（164.200，p = 0.002，95%可信区间[44.96，283.44]）和CEREC Tessera组（137.533，p = 0.016，95%可信区间[18.30，256.77]）也是如此。e.max组和n!ce Straumann组在平均得分上无统计学显著差异（92.933，p = 0.198，95%可信区间[-26.30，212.17]）。这些发现表明，与e.max CAD组相比，近期二硅酸锂贴面的临床性能有所不同。
上颌中切牙椅旁CAD-CAM二硅酸锂贴面的断裂载荷因陶瓷品牌类型而异。传统预结晶的e.max CAD比近期的预结晶和全结晶二硅酸锂材料显示出更高的断裂载荷，强调了根据期望的临床结果选择合适产品的重要性。
