Evaluation of fracture resistance of Cerasmart and lithium disilicate ceramic veneers with different incisal preparation designs: an in vitro study

Abstract

Background: Cerasmart hybrid material offers specific advantages such as less fragility and more flexibility than glass ceramics. This material also has the option of readily modifying or repairing the surface and favorable stress-absorbing characteristics. In our study, Cerasmart hybrid and lithium disilicate ceramic laminate veneers with two different preparation designs were compared with regards to their fracture resistance. Methods: A total of 52 of comparable human central maxillary incisors were used. Group A (n=26) was made up of Cerasmart hybrid ceramic laminate veneers were fabricated from Cerasmart blocks, while Group B (n=26) was made up of lithium disilicate ceramic laminate veneers were made of IPS e.max pressable ingots. Each group was subdivided in two equal subgroups according to preparation designs. Subgroup I comprised Featheredge preparation design and subgroup II: Wraparound preparation design. All samples were subjected to thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C in a water bath for a total of 1750 cycle with 10 seconds dwell time at each bath. The fracture load strength test was performed using a universal testing machine. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between all groups. E.max wraparound group recorded the highest fracture resistance mean value (422.1 N) followed by Cerasmart wraparound group (317.23 N), then e.max featheredge group (289.6 N), and finally Cerasmart featheredge group (259.3 N) had the lowest value as analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Conclusions: The Cerasmart hybrid material could be considered as a valid alternative to the widely used IPS e.max material. The fracture resistance of laminate veneers is not influenced by different type of preparation designs.