Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 32, Issue 7, July 2016, Pages 847-852
Dental Materials

Fracture toughness of chairside CAD/CAM materials – Alternative loading approach for compact tension test

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Fracture toughness (KIC) of a group of CAD/CAM nonmetallic blocks was measured.

  • Two were glass-ceramic-based, 2 were resin-composite-based, and one feldspathic porcelain, testing both glass-ceramic materials before and after firing.

  • An alternative loading approach was followed, using a modified test arrangement that was quite easy to follow, with a simplified specimen preparation.

  • ANOVA revealed significantly different mean KIC among materials, with the fired specimens revealing significantly highest values.

Abstract

Objective

This in-vitro study determined plane-strain fracture toughness (KIC) of five different chairside CAD/CAM materials used for crown fabrication, following alternative innovative loading approach of compact tension test specimens.

Methods

Rectangular-shaped specimens were cut from CAD/CAM blocks (n = 10): Vita Mark II (Vident) (VMII); Lava-Ultimate (3M/ESPE) (LU); Vita Enamic (Vident) (VE); IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent); crystallized and un-crystallized (E-max and E-max-U, respectively); and Celtra Duo (Dentsply) fired and unfired (CD and CD-U, respectively).

Specimens were notched with thin diamond disk prior to testing. Instead of applying tensile loading through drilled holes, a specially-made wedge-shaped steel loading-bar was used to apply compressive load at the notch area in Instron universal testing machine. The bar engaged the top ¼ of the notch before compressive load was applied at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Fracture load was recorded and KIC calculated. Data was statistically-analyzed with one-way ANOVA at 95% confidence level and Tukey's tests.

Results

Means and SDs of KIC in MPa m1/2 for VMII, LU, VE, E-max, E-max-U, CD and CD-U were: 0.73 (0.13), 0.85 (0.21), 1.02 (0.19), 1.88 (0.62), 0.81 (0.25), 2.65 (0.32) and 1.01 (0.15), respectively. ANOVA revealed significant difference among the groups (p < 0.001). CD and E-max had significantly highest mean KIC values.

Significance

Mean KIC values of the tested materials varied considerably, however, none of them reached mean KIC of dentin (3.08 MPa m1/2) previously reported. For E-max and CD, specimens firing significantly increased mean KIC. The modified test arrangement was found to be easy to follow and simplified specimen preparation process.

Introduction

Ceramics are inorganic products with nonmetallic characteristics. These compounds are fired at higher temperatures to attain desirable properties [1]. Dental ceramics have excellent esthetic properties and are highly biocompatible [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. New handling and processing technologies have led to a wider range of available modern ceramic materials for CAD/CAM machining [4], [8], with a more easy fabrication procedure [9].

Poor longevity of earlier ceramic materials due to increased fracture rates was a main complication of these materials [10]. Ceramics are considered to be brittle in nature having increased susceptibility to fracture under tension. This brittleness results in the development of cracks with subsequent crack propagation and finally catastrophic failure [11], [12]. Moreover, ceramic restorations present in the oral cavity are subject to thermal, chemical and mechanical influences, which concentrate stresses on minute surface areas. These concentrated stresses cause strain(s) to develop [13], [14], [15].

Dental restorations must be mechanically stable and durable during function [16], in order to resist deleterious effects of the harsh oral environment. A significant factor affecting strength and mechanical behavior of ceramic materials is the distribution of existing flaws [17]. During CAD-CAM milling procedure, machining and grinding of the blocks creates surface damage in the form of micro-cracks and flaws [8] which may propagate slowly causing failure of the restoration. To counteract this side effect of grinding, polishing or glazing of the outer surfaces of the restoration is routinely performed [9], [13], [18].

Fracture toughness (KIC) is an intrinsic property of a material that relates to its resistance to crack propagation which finally causes its failure [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. This property is concerned with the critical stress intensity, K, at the crack tip [24], [25]. The critical stress intensity depends on the tri-axial strain conditions and crack instability that occurs under plane strain conditions at a minimum K to be referred to as fracture toughness (KIC) [24].

A restorative material with high fracture toughness (KIC) shows better fracture resistance and longevity in service as compared to materials with lower fracture toughness (KIC) [14], [24], [25]. For brittle materials, fracture toughness (KIC) is one of the most significant mechanical properties that is independent of specimen shape, flaw size and stress concentration [19].

Numerous techniques have been commonly used for testing fracture toughness (KIC). These include: the indentation strength (IS), indentation fracture (IF), the single-edge-notched beam (SENB), single-edge pre-cracked beam (SEPB), compact tension (CT), chevron notched short rod/chevron notched short bar (CNSR/CNSB) and the double torsion double cantilever beam (DCB) [19].

The single-edge-notched beam (SENB) and compact tension (CT) test geometries are suggested for dental materials, because both tests require a smaller specimen size to fulfill plane strain conditions as compared to configurations of specimens of other tests [26].

Traditionally, the compact tension (CT) test was used for determining fracture toughness (KIC) of resilient materials, such as dentin and resin composites [24], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. It has not as yet been used for testing brittle dental ceramic materials.

This study aimed to apply the compact tension (CT) test design in a modified form to measure fracture toughness (KIC) of a group of restorative CAD/CAM materials including ceramics and nanoceramic resin composites.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Machinable CAD/CAM blocks representative of 5 different material types were cut into rectangular-shaped specimens (n = 10 specimens/material) being 4 mm thick. The specimens conformed to the dimensions prescribed for the compact tension test, ASTM E-399 [32], however, no holes were drilled. The materials comprised a lithium disilicate glass ceramic, IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) tested before and after crystallization; a fully-crystallized zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic,

Results

Means and standard deviation values of KIC for tested materials are presented in a bar chart (Fig. 4). ANOVA revealed a significant difference among the means (p < 0.05). Highest mean KIC values were recorded for CD and E-max specimens, 2.65 (0.32) and 1.88 (0.62) MPa m1/2, respectively. These values were significantly higher than those of all other groups according to Tukey's test. Furthermore, mean KIC value for CD was found to be significantly higher than that of E-max (p < 0.0001).

Discussion

Fracture toughness (KIC) is an intrinsic material property [24] that determines a material's ability to resist crack propagation, as well as its resistance to fracture [25]. According to ASTM E399 [32], a state of plane strain prevails with a sample thickness ≥2.5 (KIC/σYs)2, where σYs is the yield strength of the material. To calculate the correct thickness of the specimen, fracture toughness of Lava (9 MPa m1/2) as the highest KIC value of a ceramic and yield strength (Ys) of enamel (330 MPa)

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions could be drawn:

  • 1.

    Highest KIC values were recorded for fired/crystallized glass-ceramic materials (CD/E-max, respectively).

  • 2.

    Glass-ceramic materials without firing or crystallization were associated with significantly lower mean KIC compared to their fired/crystallized counterparts.

  • 3.

    As a first report, the modified test arrangement was easy to follow and simplified specimen preparation process.

References (65)

  • R.E. Kovarik et al.

    Effects of specimen geometry on the measurement of fracture toughness

    Dent Mater

    (1991)
  • H. Fischer et al.

    Fracture toughness of dental ceramics: comparison of bending and indentation method

    Dent Mater

    (2002)
  • J.G. Williams et al.

    European group on fracture: Kc and Gc methods for polymers

    Polym Test

    (1990)
  • A.G. Gegauff et al.

    Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics

    J Prosthet Dent

    (1987)
  • R.E. Kovarik et al.

    Effect of Griffith precracks on measurement of composite fracture toughness

    Dent Mater

    (1993)
  • P.C. Guess et al.

    All-ceramic systems: laboratory and clinical performance

    Dent Clin North Am

    (2011)
  • L. Yin et al.

    An overview of in vitro abrasive finishing and CAD/CAM of bioceramics in restorative dentistry

    Int J Mach Tools Manuf

    (2006)
  • M.B. Blatz et al.

    Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature

    J Prosthet Dent

    (2003)
  • S.B. Mitra et al.

    An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials

    J Am Dent Assoc

    (2003)
  • F. Zarone et al.

    From porcelain-fused-to metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • M. Albakry et al.

    Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic dental materials

    J Dent

    (2003)
  • J.F. Nguyen et al.

    Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization

    Dent Mater

    (2012)
  • A. Coldea et al.

    Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials

    Dent Mater

    (2013)
  • L.H. He et al.

    A novel polymer infiltrated ceramic dental material

    Dent Mater

    (2011)
  • R.L. Sakaguchi et al.

    Craig's restorative dental materials

    (2012)
  • K.J. Annusavice

    Degradability of dental ceramics

    Adv Dent Res

    (1992)
  • G.W. Ho et al.

    Insights on ceramics as dental materials. Part I. Ceramic material types in dentistry

    Silicon

    (2011)
  • J.R. Kelly

    Ceramics in restorative and prosthetic dentistry

    Annu Rev Mater Sci

    (1997)
  • I. Sailer et al.

    Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia–ceramic and metal–ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up

    Int J Prosthod

    (2009)
  • I.L. Denry et al.

    Effect of heat treatment on microcrack healing behavior of a machinable dental ceramic

    J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater)

    (1999)
  • J.R. Kelly et al.

    Failure of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures in vitro and in vivo: analysis and modeling

    J Dent Res

    (1995)
  • T. Miyazaki et al.

    CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations

    Aust Dent J

    (2011)
  • Cited by (51)

    • Effect of different surface treatments on the micro tensile bond strength to dentin, biaxial flexural strength and roughness of CAD/CAM resin composite and polymer infiltrated ceramic

      2022, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Restorative materials have been used with computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology, such polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC) and resin composite (RC) (Badawy et al., 2016.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +1 416 979 4934x4572; fax: +1 416 979 4936.

    2

    Tel.: +1 416 979 4934x4420; fax: +1 416 979 4936.

    View full text