Alsulimani Osamah, Yousief Salah A, Al-Dabbagh Raghad A, Attar Esraa A, Bukhary Dalea M, Algamaiah Hamad, Musawa Khadija, Subahi Awatif, Abuzinadah Samar H, Alhaddad Abdulrahman J, Alqahtani Waleed M S, Emam Abdel Naser M, Alqhtani Mohammad A, Elmarakby Ahmed M
Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, 13313, Saudi Arabia.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2025 Jan 28;17:67-76. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S504292. eCollection 2025.
Improved Lithium Disilicate Ceramic has been highly valued in dentistry for over two decades, owing to its durability and aesthetic qualities, making it a preferred choice for both anterior and posterior crowns.
This study aimed to evaluate the flexural strength of two types of lithium disilicate blocks post-chewing simulation.
Seventy-six lithium disilicate specimens were utilized in this study. They were divided into two primary groups (n=38) based on two brands: IPS Emax CAD LT (Ivoclar Vivadent) designated as (E), and Initial Lisi LT/B1 (GC America) designated as (L). Each primary group was further split into two subgroups (n=19) based on surface treatment: group E into (E0 & E1) and group L into (L0 & L1). Half of the specimens were subjected to flexural testing without chewing simulation cycles and designated as (E0 and L0), while the remainder were tested after 24×10 cycles of chewing simulation and designated as (E1 and L1). The ceramic surfaces were examined using SEM before and after loading.
Data were gathered, organized, and subjected to Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests (p-value < 0.05), followed by analysis with Brown-Forsythe two-way ANOVA and Tamhane's post hoc tests to assess group differences (p-value <0.05).
There were significant statistical differences in the flexural strength values between the different brand groups before and after chewing simulation (p-value < 0.05). The IPS Emax CAD group showed values approximately twice that of the Initial Lisi group (307.2-310.5 MPa ± 48.5-67 vs 148.1-158.5 MPa ± 24.6-25.6).
Within the limitation of the current study, the following may be concluded: 1. The study's findings suggest that Initial Lisi blocks should not be used for posterior teeth restorations. 2. This study can provide valuable insights for dental professionals to make informed decisions about which material is most appropriate for various clinical situations.
二十多年来，改良型二硅酸锂陶瓷因其耐久性和美学特性在牙科领域备受重视，使其成为前后牙冠修复的首选材料。
本研究旨在评估两种类型的二硅酸锂块体在咀嚼模拟后的抗弯强度。
本研究使用了76个二硅酸锂标本。根据两个品牌将它们分为两个主要组（n = 38）：IPS Emax CAD LT（义获嘉伟瓦登特公司）指定为（E）组，Initial Lisi LT/B1（美国GC公司）指定为（L）组。每个主要组根据表面处理进一步分为两个亚组（n = 19）：E组分为（E0和E1），L组分为（L0和L1）。一半的标本在不进行咀嚼模拟循环的情况下进行抗弯测试，指定为（E0和L0），其余标本在进行24×10次咀嚼模拟循环后进行测试，指定为（E1和L1）。在加载前后使用扫描电子显微镜检查陶瓷表面。
收集、整理数据，并进行夏皮罗-威尔克检验和莱文检验（p值<0.05），然后用布朗-福赛思双向方差分析和塔姆哈尼事后检验分析以评估组间差异（p值<0.05）。
在咀嚼模拟前后，不同品牌组之间的抗弯强度值存在显著统计学差异（p值<0.05）。IPS Emax CAD组的值约为Initial Lisi组的两倍（307.2 - 310.5 MPa ± 48.5 - 67对148.1 - 158.5 MPa ± 24.6 - 25.6）。
在本研究的局限性内，可以得出以下结论：1. 研究结果表明Initial Lisi块体不应用于后牙修复。2. 本研究可为牙科专业人员在决定哪种材料最适合各种临床情况时提供有价值的见解。
