Fracture Resistance of Various Thickness e.max CAD Lithium Disilicate Crowns Cemented on Different Supporting Substrates: An in vitro Study

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of abutment material properties on the fracture resistance and failure mode of lithium disilicate (IPS e.max) CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/manufacturing) crowns on traditionally and minimally prepared simulated tooth substrates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty lithium disilicate (IPS e.max) CAD/CAM crowns were divided into three groups (n = 10): TD: traditional thickness crowns cemented on Paradigm MZ100 abutments; MD: minimal thickness crowns cemented on Paradigm MZ100 abutments; ME: minimal thickness crowns cemented on e.max abutments. The 3Shape system was used to scan, design and mill all abutments and crowns with a die space set to 40 microm. Traditional thickness crowns were designed based on manufacturer guidelines with 1.5 mm occlusal thickness and 1.0 mm margins. Minimal thickness crowns were designed with 0.7 mm occlusal thickness and 0.5 mm margins. MZ100 composite and e.max abutments were selected to simulate dentin and enamel substrates, respectively, based on their elastic-modulus. Variolink Esthetic was used to cement all samples following manufacturer's instructions. A universal testing machine was used to load all specimens to fracture with a 3 mm radius stainless steel hemispherical tip at a crosshead speed 0.5 mm/minute along the longitudinal axis of the abutment with a 1 mm thermoplastic film placed between the loading tip and crown surface. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc assessment. Fractographic analysis was performed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: The mean fracture load (standard deviation) was 1499 (241) N for TD; 1228 (287) N for MD; and 1377 (96) N for ME. Statistically significant difference between groups did not exist (p = 0.157, F = 1.995). In groups TD and MD with low e-modulus abutments, the dispersion of a probability distribution (coefficient of variation: CV) was statistically higher than that of group ME with high e-modulus abutments. SEM illustrated larger micro-fracture dimensions in Group MD than Group ME. CONCLUSION: Minimal thickness e.max crowns did not demonstrate statistical difference in fracture resistance from traditional thickness crowns. Fracture mechanisms of minimal thickness e.max crowns may be affected by the e-modulus of the substrate. Minimal thickness e.max crowns may be a viable restorative option when supported by high e-modulus materials.