RESUMO
The aim of this study was to compare the influence of heat treatment on fracture resistance (FR) of different ceramic materials used for CAD/CAM systems. METHODS: Eighty monolithic restorations were designed using the same parameters and milled with a CAD/CAM system (CEREC SW 5.0, PrimeMill, Dentsply-Sirona™, Bensheim, Germany), forming five study groups: Group 1 (n = 10), CEREC Tessera (Dentsply-Sirona™, Bensheim, Germany) crystallized (CCT), Group 2 (n = 10), CEREC Tessera uncrystallized (UCT), Group 3 (n = 20), Emax-CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (CEC), Group 4 (n = 20), Vita Suprinity (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) (CVS), and Group 5 (n = 20) Cameo (Aidite, Qinhuangdao, China) (CC). RESULTS: The average FR was similar for CCT, CC, and CEC at above 400 N, while CVS and UCT had the lowest values at 389,677 N and 343,212 N, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among the three ceramic materials that exhibited an FR above 400 N, CCT was considered the first recommended choice for CAD/CAM systems. This material not only demonstrated the highest FR but also exhibited outstanding consistency in the related measurements without the presence of outliers. Although the CC material showed high FR, its high dispersion revealed inconsistencies in the repetitions, suggesting caution in its use.
RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength of monolithic zirconium dioxide subjected to a sintering process in two different furnaces: InFire HTC Speed and CEREC SpeedFire. METHODS: Forty restorations were designed and machined using a computer aided design / computer aidded machine (CAD/CAM) system. The restorations were randomly assigned to two groups of 20 samples each, Group 1 for the SpeedFire furnace (fast sintering) and Group 2 for the InFire furnace (slow sintering). Each of the crowns was subjected to a maximum compression load recorded in Newtons (N) and a displacement control with a speed of 1 mm/min. RESULTS: Group 1 presented an average of 1222.8 N and a standard deviation of 136.91 N. Group 2 obtained a mean of 1068.5 N and a standard deviation of 316.39 N. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the two groups, and the mechanical strength of the material was not affected, which would imply a saving of clinical and laboratory time when performing rapid sintering on monolithic translucent zirconium dioxide restorations. However, rapidly sintered restorations have limited reliability.