Different cavity designs with additional wings increase the fracture resistance of inlay-retained monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses

WOS:000864437300016 PubMed ID36125873Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different cavity designs and cement types on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses (IRFDPs). Materials and Methods: Four study models consisting of a second premolar, a missing first molar, and a second molar were used for the different cavity designs. Four different inlay cavity designs were prepared: DO-MO (disto-occlusal-mesio-occlusal cavity), MOD-MOD (mesio-occlusodistal-mesio-occlusodistal cavity), WDO-WMO (DO-MO with additional wings), and WMOD-WMOD (MOD-MOD with additional wings). A total of 64 epoxy resin models were produced and scanned individually. IRFDPs were then fabricated from monolithic zirconia using CAD/ CAM software. The bonding surface of the IRFDPs was airborne particle abraded (50-mu m alumina/2 MPa), then cemented onto the epoxy resin models using two cementation protocols (n = 8 per group): (1) P = cemented with Panavia SA Cement Plus Automix; and (2) Z/C = cemented with MDP-containing primer (Z-Prime Plus) combined with Calibra Universal resin cement. All IRFDPs were fatigued through thermal aging (6,000 cycles/5 & DEG;C to 55 & DEG;C) and chewing simulations (600,000 cycles x 50-N load, 2.1 Hz). All IRFDPs were then subjected to a fracture resistance test using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.2 mm/minute. Data were statistically analyzed using one-and two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons test (P = .001). Results: The mean fracture load (N) of the designs were as follows: WMOD-WMOD = 1,111.1; WDO-WMO = 1,057.4; MOD-MOD = 725.6; DO-MO = 682.7. According to two-way ANOVA, the differences among the cavity designs were statistically significant (P < .05). Conclusion: The cavity design of IRFDPs affected the fracture resistance. However, the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia IRFDPs with any cavity design was enough to withstand expected posterior chewing forces