Work

Comparative Quasi-Static Compressive Loading Performance of Two Ultrathin Ceramic Occlusal Veneers for Minimally Invasive Restorations

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: BACKGROUND: In the field of minimally invasive restorative dentistry, ultrathin (<0.5 mm thickness) ceramic occlusal veneers are increasing being used as alternatives to full-coverage crowns, particularly for mild occlusal wear and not deep caries. However, only limited research attention has been given to how marked reduction in the thickness of a veneer restoration affects its mechanical performance. The purpose of the present in vitro study was to compare the performance of restorations that comprised a 0.3 mm thick zirconia veneer to the case when a lithium disilicate veneer was used, under quasi-static compressive loading. METHODS: = 20). The teeth were embedded in acrylic resin up to the cementoenamel junction. Digital scans were used to record the original anatomy and guide restoration design. Standardized occlusal preparations were performed using a 0.3 mm reduction protocol and verified with silicone guides to support a biomimetic, tooth-preserving approach. After preparation, the teeth were rescanned, and restorations were designed and fabricated using CAD/CAM technology. Lithium disilicate restorations were milled from Ivoclar Porcelain System [IPS], esthetic maximized [e.max] computer-aided design [CAD] blocks, whereas zirconia restorations were milled from Prettau 3 zirconia discs. Restorations were adhesively cemented with dual-cure resin cement following material-specific surface treatment protocols. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine under compressive loading until failure. RESULTS: The fracture loads with lithium disilicate and zirconia occlusal veneers were 481.45 ± 68.23 N and 720.93 ± 95.44 N, respectively. Fracture was catastrophic in lithium disilicate occlusal veneers whereas it was not so when zirconia veneer was used. CONCLUSION: Quasi-static compressive fracture load when a lithium disilicate veneer was used was significantly lower than when a zirconia veneer was used.

Source: Biomimetics

DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics11070517