Load bearing capacity and Weibull characteristics of inlay-retained resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis made of all-ceramic, fiber-reinforced composite and metal-ceramic after cyclic loading

Abstract

PURPOSE The objectives of this study were to evaluate the load bearing capacity of RBFDPs made of different materials after cyclic loading, and classify the failure types after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sound human mandibular first premolars and first molar pairs (N = 60 per tooth type, n = 10 per group) were randomly divided into six experimental groups to receive one of the following inlay-retained RBFDP types: RC: Resin composite only, DFRC: Direct E-glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), IFRC: Indirect E-glass FRC, LS: Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, ZR: Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia, MC: Metal-ceramic. Box preparations were made in abutment teeth using diamond burs followed by standardized ultrasonic burs. The teeth were conditioned employing an etch-and-rinse adhesive system and the indirect RBFDPs were cemented adhesively. The specimens were subjected to cyclic loading for x1.200.000 in distilled water alternating between 5 and 55 °C (Zurich Chewing Simulator). They were then loaded to failure from the occlusal surface in the Universal Testing Machine (cross-head speed: 1 mm/min). Failure types were classified as repairable or irreparable depending on the location and size. Data were analyzed using Welch and Tamhane's T2 post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Weibull modulus for each group was calculated based on parametric distribution analysis of censored data for maximum fracture load. RESULTS Mean load bearing capacity (N) of Groups LS (1274 ± 270), ZR (1567 ± 363) and MC (1544 ± 787) were significantly higher than those of other groups (p < 0.05). RC, DFRC, IFRC (601 ± 130 - 819 ± 270) and MC did not show significant difference (p > 0.05). Weibull modulus (m) was the highest in Group LS (m = 5.3) followed by Group RC (m = 5.1). Other groups presented Weibull moduli ranging between 1.4 and 3.3. Only in Group ZR, 2 early debonding occurred during cyclic loading. While in this group predominantly irreparable failures (debonding with without tooth fracture) were observed (8 out of 10), all other groups presented mainly single or a combination of repairable failures (chipping in the veneering material). DFRC, IDRC and MC did not show any debonding from the abutment teeth. CONCLUSION Considering load bearing capacity, repairable failure types and Weibull moduli, lithium disilicate seem to be more durable than those of other material options for posterior inlay-retained RBFDPs. Due to early debondings and catastrophic irreparable failure types, zirconia RBFDPs should be indicated with caution in the posterior region.