Accuracy and retention of laminate veneers made from zirconia, resin composite, and lithium disilicate using additive and subtractive techniques: An in vitro study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Accuracy and retention of laminate veneers made from zirconia, resin composite, and lithium disilicate using additive and subtractive techniques: An in vitro study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Sasany R; Department of Prosthodontics, Biruni University, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: rsasany@biruni.edu.tr., Çakmak G; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey; Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany., Mosaddad SA; Department of Research Analytics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: semosadd@ucm.es. |
| Source: | Journal of dentistry [J Dent] 2025 Dec; Vol. 163, pp. 106153. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Oct 08. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article; Comparative Study |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Elsevier Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0354422 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1879-176X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 03005712 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Dent Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: Kidlington : Elsevier Original Publication: Bristol, Eng., Wright. |
| MeSH Terms: | Dental Veneers* , Zirconium*/chemistry , Dental Porcelain*/chemistry , Composite Resins*/chemistry , Dental Materials*/chemistry , Dental Prosthesis Design*/methods, Humans ; Computer-Aided Design ; Materials Testing ; In Vitro Techniques ; Incisor ; Surface Properties |
| Abstract: | Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Objectives: To evaluate and compare the trueness and retention of laminate veneers (LVs) fabricated using four different CAD-CAM material-process combinations, including both additive (AM) and subtractive (SM) manufacturing techniques. Methods: An in vitro study was conducted using a standardized maxillary central incisor preparation. Eighty LVs were fabricated (n=20/group) from: AM resin composite (AM-RC), AM zirconia (AM-Z), SM advanced lithium disilicate (SM-LDS), and SM zirconia (SM-Z). Trueness was assessed using root mean square (RMS) deviation values and color map visualization. Retention was tested after thermomechanical aging. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=0.05). Results: There were significant differences in trueness and retention among groups (p<0.005). AM-RC showed the highest RMS values (e.g., internal: 38.32 ±2.2 µm) and the lowest retention (689.85 ±30.81 N). No significant differences in trueness or retention were found between SM-Z (internal: 30.12 ±2.4 µm; 782.10 ±34.12 N), SM-LDS (internal: 31.85 ±2.3 µm; 801.90 ±39.43 N), and AM-Z (internal: 32.45 ±2.5 µm; 799.45 ±33.83 N). Conclusions: The material type and manufacturing method significantly influenced the adaptation and retention of LVs. AM-Z, SM-Z, and SM-LDS demonstrated comparable and clinically acceptable outcomes, while AM-RC showed inferior trueness and retention. Clinical Relevance: Subtractive lithium disilicate and zirconia, as well as high-performance additive zirconia, exhibited clinically acceptable adaptation and retention, supporting their use in definitive laminate veneers. In contrast, printed resin composite showed inferior performance and should be limited to provisional applications. (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.) |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Computer-aided design; Dental bonding; Dental restoration, Permanent; Dental veneers; Prosthodontics; Three-dimensional printing |
| Substance Nomenclature: | 0 (lithia disilicate) C6V6S92N3C (Zirconium) 12001-21-7 (Dental Porcelain) 0 (Composite Resins) S38N85C5G0 (zirconium oxide) 0 (Dental Materials) |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251010 Date Completed: 20251122 Latest Revision: 20251124 |
| Update Code: | 20251124 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106153 |
| PMID: | 41072901 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.<br />Objectives: To evaluate and compare the trueness and retention of laminate veneers (LVs) fabricated using four different CAD-CAM material-process combinations, including both additive (AM) and subtractive (SM) manufacturing techniques.<br />Methods: An in vitro study was conducted using a standardized maxillary central incisor preparation. Eighty LVs were fabricated (n=20/group) from: AM resin composite (AM-RC), AM zirconia (AM-Z), SM advanced lithium disilicate (SM-LDS), and SM zirconia (SM-Z). Trueness was assessed using root mean square (RMS) deviation values and color map visualization. Retention was tested after thermomechanical aging. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=0.05).<br />Results: There were significant differences in trueness and retention among groups (p<0.005). AM-RC showed the highest RMS values (e.g., internal: 38.32 ±2.2 µm) and the lowest retention (689.85 ±30.81 N). No significant differences in trueness or retention were found between SM-Z (internal: 30.12 ±2.4 µm; 782.10 ±34.12 N), SM-LDS (internal: 31.85 ±2.3 µm; 801.90 ±39.43 N), and AM-Z (internal: 32.45 ±2.5 µm; 799.45 ±33.83 N).<br />Conclusions: The material type and manufacturing method significantly influenced the adaptation and retention of LVs. AM-Z, SM-Z, and SM-LDS demonstrated comparable and clinically acceptable outcomes, while AM-RC showed inferior trueness and retention.<br />Clinical Relevance: Subtractive lithium disilicate and zirconia, as well as high-performance additive zirconia, exhibited clinically acceptable adaptation and retention, supporting their use in definitive laminate veneers. In contrast, printed resin composite showed inferior performance and should be limited to provisional applications.<br /> (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1879-176X |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106153 |