The aim of this study was to investigate whether different fabrication processes, such as the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system or the manual build-up technique, affect the fracture resistance of composite resin-based crowns. Lava Ultimate (LU), Estenia C&B (EC&B), and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic IPS e.max press (EMP) were used. Four types of molar crowns were fabricated: CAD/CAM-generated composite resin-based crowns (LU crowns); manually built-up monolayer composite resin-based crowns (EC&B-monolayer crowns); manually built-up layered composite resin-based crowns (EC&B-layered crowns); and EMP crowns. Each type of crown was cemented to dies and the fracture resistance was tested. EC&B-layered crowns showed significantly lower fracture resistance compared with LU and EMP crowns, although there was no significant difference in flexural strength or fracture toughness between LU and EC&B materials. Micro-computed tomography and fractographic analysis showed that decreased strength probably resulted from internal voids in the EC&B-layered crowns introduced by the layering process. There was no significant difference in fracture resistance among LU, EC&B-monolayer, and EMP crowns. Both types of composite resin-based crowns showed fracture loads of >2000 N, which is higher than the molar bite force. Therefore, CAD/CAM-generated crowns, without internal defects, may be applied to molar regions with sufficient fracture resistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harada et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: