IADR Abstract Archives
Characterization of nanoceramic resin composite and lithiumdisilicate blocks for CAD/CAM
Objective: test null hypothesis (H0) that mechanical properties, namely flexural strength (σf), flexural modulus (Ef), and fracture toughness (KIC) of Lava Ultimate and Enamic are comparable to those of IPS eMax CAD, under both non-aged and aged conditions.
Methods: Thirty triangular prisms [(6x6x6x12) mm)] and fifty [(2x2x25) mm)] bars were prepared by wet cutting and grinding from each material. Half of the samples were tested dry and half after storage in water at 37°C for 30d (only NCRBC were aged). KIC was determined using the notchless triangular prism specimen KIC test with a computer controlled (Bluehill) Instron 4301. Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Scheffé multiple mean comparisons (a=0.05); Weibull statistics was used as well.
Results: Table summarizes the results. H0 was rejected since σf, Ef, and KIC were significantly lower for Lava Ultimate and Enamic when compared with e.max CAD.
Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, σf, Ef, and KIC of CB were superior to those of NCRCB. Moreover, properties of NCRCB were affected by ageing.
Table Results (mean ± SD)
Material/Test |
σf (MPa) |
Ef (GPa) |
KIC (MPa·m1/2) |
|||
dry |
aged |
dry |
aged |
dry |
aged |
|
LavaUltimate |
155.4 ± 19.2 |
113.3 ± 13.9 |
13.6 ± 1.1 |
12.2 ± 0.7 |
0.91 ± 0.15 |
0.99 ± 0.23 |
Enamic |
139.7 ± 8.6 |
123.3 ± 8.2 |
29.0 ± 3.0 |
27.1 ± 2.2 |
0.96 ± 0.17* |
0.88 ± 0.30 |
IPSe.MaxCAD |
342.7 ± 60.9 |
- |
66.1 ± 9.3 |
- |
1.79 ± 0.29 |
- |
*Most samples fractured during crack initiation or mounting – results not included