JPID - Vol 06 - Issue 02

CAD/CAM CERAMIC MATERIALS FOR INDIRECT RESTORATIONS IN DENTISTRY — A REVIEW

* Punya Krishnan B, **Sapna Bhaskaran, ***Meenu Merry C Paul, ****Sujith K Menon, *****Deepthi Venugopalan, *Aryasree P M
*PG Student, ** Professor & HOD, ***Professor & Principal, ****Reader, *****Senior Lecturer, Malabar Dental College & Research Centre, Edappal, Malappuram - 679 582 | Corresponding Author: Dr. Punya Krishnan B, E-mail: punyakrishnan555@gmail.com

Abstract:

The aim of this review article is to present various ceramic materials currently utilized in the field of CAD/CAM. Due to high aesthetic and functional demands of indirect restorations research on dental materials is increasing. Comparing the materials will take into account their mechanical properties, their clinical usage, their advantages and disadvantages.

Key words: CAD/CAM; dental ceramics; biocompatibility dental materials; mechanical properties

Introduction

CAD/CAM stands for computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing. As a means of accelerating the design process and easing its transition into production, CAD/CAM is applied across various fields of engineering, science, and even art1. The purpose of this review is to highlight its constantly growing role in dental prosthetics, more specifically, in bridges, onlays, crowns and veneers. CAD/CAM allows us to provide patients with implants, inlays, onlays and crowns and veneers that are placed on dental implants2. It is possible for a dentist to scan a patient’s dental cavity, design and make their restorations, and bond them in a matter of hours because of the technology used in CAD/CAM.

CAD/CAM Advantages

  • Higher efficiency and comfort.
  • Sufficient edge adaptability.
  • Reduce the operation time
  • Increase the positive emotions of the patient
  • Maintain a sufficient level of accuracy

Limitations and handling

There is no doubt that CAD/CAM technology is very innovative and offers a wide range of opportunities. CAD/CAM systems may not be enough to achieve correct teeth relations in clinical cases regarding patients with maxillomandibular disorders and occlusion distortions . As a consequence, restorations exceeding the height and width of the blocks cannot be designed or milled. This reveals clinical problems including occlusal vertical dimensions that are inaccurate and centric relationships that are incorrect. Digital scans are more accurate when the arch included in the impression is short . Different types of materials can have different survival rates when it comes to CAD/CAM restorations. The Vita Mark II (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) ceramic material showed a survival rate of 90.6% after 8 years and 85.7-89% after 10 years3. As a result, the survival rate decreases with time. Among Zirconia based restoration patients with periodontal disease or conservative reasons, lasers can be used. There is a possibility that lasers can adversely affect the surface of restorative material. According to Romanyk, et al., subtractive machining causes surface and subsurface damage to the restorations which may have clinical relevance.



Dental CAD/CAM systems currently used

In recent years, CAD/CAM software providers (e.g., CEREC SW 5.1.3, Dentsply Sirona, York, PA) and manufacturing systems have emerged in great numbers. There are two types of CAD/ CAM systems: in-office and laboratory systems [35]4. Both of them are complex and contain many components. Among Sirona’s offerings are the CEREC Omnicam scanner, CAD/design and CAM software, as well as the CEREC MC, X and XL 4-axis milling machines. Carestream Dental (Atlanta, GA), Dental Wings (Montréal, QC, Canada) and Zfx (Dachau, Germany) are other examples of CAD/CAM systems used5. Several companies offer parts included in CAD/CAM systems that can be bought separately as well. Dental professionals usually choose an appropriate system based on their experience and office equipment, but patients’ therapeutic needs must also be taken into account6.

CAD/CAM ceramic materials

Computer-aided manufacturing uses a variety of materials.. An example of the CAD/CAM block before processing is shown in this figure.

Dental ceramics
Ceramic type has a different clinical application due to its properties (see Table 1).



Resin Matrix Ceramics
This is a relatively new material on the market, but it is said to show some beneficial properties for dentures. Resin-based ceramics are characterized by good milling performance, higher load capacity and better elastic modulus compared with silica based ceramics5. Compared with pure ceramics, the manufacturing process of VITA Enamic ensures a lower fracture tendency and superior CAD/CAM processing performance. In addition, their optical properties are similar to those of natural teeth, and compared to ceramics, they are characterized by lower tooth wear.

Silicate Ceramics
These are non-metallic inorganic ceramic materials containing a glass phase. Examples of silica-based ceramics are Vitablocs TriLuxe from Vita and IPS Empress Cad multi from Ivoclar Vivadent. They have good optical properties, such as high transparency and natural appearance. Studies evaluating the tensile bond strength of lithium disilicate ceramics have confirmed that etching the bonding surface of restorations with hydrofluoric acid is still the “gold standard “.7

Leucite-Reinforced Glass Ceramics
Discussed the long-term clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced glass repair ceramics (such as Duraceram and Dentsply Degussa). Leucite reinforced ceramics are not recommended for posterior dental crowns, because compared with other glass ceramics, leucite-reinforced ceramics have lower mechanical properties8. However, their aesthetic quality is sufficient and in recent years, it has been replaced by lithium silicate ceramics, which has better physical properties and sufficient optical properties

Lithium Silicate Ceramics
Some sources claim that lithium silicate ceramics (for example, Ivoclarivoclar Vivadentvivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein’s IPS e.max CAD, VITA Zahnfabrik’s VITA Suprinity PC and Dentsply Sirona’s Celtra Duo) are the strongest of all available silicate ceramics. Its flexural strength is about 407 MPa. First, lithium disilicate ceramics was introduced to the market in 1998 (IPS Empress 2).9

Comparison of CAD/CAM CERAMIC materials

(see Table 2)



Adhesion-bonding of CAD/CAM restoration

Successful and stable bonding leads to high clinical success rates over the long run. CAD/ CAM restorations are largely recommended for resin bonding and self-adhesive resin cements. A. Mine et al. created a review providing a broad outlook on the bonding procedures of CAD/CAM materials.10 A hydrofluoric acid etching procedure should be carried out before bonding to create microretentive surfaces.11 Afterward, silanization is performed in order to ensure chemical adhesion. Study characteristics of the bonding procedure for CAD/CAM polymer-infiltrated ceramics (such as Vita Enamic) are compared with indirect resin composite materials (such as the Lava Ultimet, KATANA AVENCIA block, Gradia Block, Ceras-Mart and Block HC). There are general recommendations for bonding CAD/CAM materials, but they may vary depending on producer recommendations and clinical operators’ experiences. A technical and scientific document from Vita Enamic provides an example of the bonding process12. The author proposed the following scheme: use VITA CERAMICS ETCH (5% hydrofluoric acid gel) to etch for 60 seconds, and then use VITASIL, VITA or Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent for silanization.

Biocompatibility and cytotoxicity of CAD/CAM materials

Adapting the newly placed dental restoration to the oral cavity’s conditions is extremely important, not only regarding their shape, but with the mechanical and physical properties as well.

Compatibility with the surrounding tissues is crucial in the biological aspect. In the context of cytotoxicity, biocompatibility is an interdisciplinary concept that encompasses biological, chemical and physical interactions and is closely related to the concept of cytotoxicity. A CAD/CAM material must possess the mechanical, chemical, and thermal properties of human bone in addition to being biocompatible with the surrounding tissues. The material should not cause any irritation, swelling, or intolerance in the oral cavity. Biocompatibility must therefore be considered when evaluating potential materials. Surface roughness and type determine adhesion. CAD/CAM materials used for CAD/CAM were studied for adhesion and development of microorganisms that form biofilms13. Accordingly, IPS e.max and polished IPS e.max showed the best ”anti-adhesion properties” against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus rhamnosus. Additionally, Materials 2021, 14, 1592 15 of 21 concluded that the ceramic materials (lithium disilicate) showed a superior response to the cells.

CONCLUSION

Ceramic materials are becoming more accessible and easier to handle in CAD/CAM. Modern ceramic materials for CAD/CAM are described along with their mechanical and clinical properties, which enable long-term success of restorations. Selecting the right material also requires clinical experience. To produce a successful prosthetic restoration, the technique must always be customized to each individual patient. An occlusal plan may not be able to be defined in the case of maxillomandibular relationship disorders. In order to meet the patient’s individual needs, material and method selection must be individualized for each case. The use of this technology provides not only a high quality, professionalism & profit but also a steady increase of a new and satisfied patients and are easy to use.

REFERENCES

  1. Boboulos MA. CAD-CAM & rapid prototyping application evaluation; Bookboon: London, UK; ISBN 9788776816766; 2010.
  2. Sadowsky SJ. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(6):433-42. doi: 10.1016/j. prosdent.2006.09.018, PMID 17174661.
  3. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ulusoy M. Comparison of the translucency of shaded zirconia all-ceramic systems. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(5):415-22. doi: 10.4047/ jap.2014.6.5.415, PMID 25352964.
  4. Mizrahi B. The anterior all-ceramic crown: a rationale for the choice of ceramic and cement. Br Dent J. 2008;205(5):251-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.735, PMID 18791580.
  5. Pieger S, Salman A, Bidra AS. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(1):22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.005, PMID 24674802.
  6. Pjetursson B, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle C. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: single crowns. Clin Oral Implan Res. 2017;18;Suppl 3:73-85.
  7. Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, McLaren EA, Burgess JO. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014;42(12):1586-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008, PMID 25257823.
  8. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):610-7. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12180, PMID 24995593.
  9. Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Al Omari WM, Baba NZ. Comparison of the fit of lithium disilicate crowns made from conventional, digital, or conventional/digital techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e580-6. doi: 10.1111/ jopr.12961, PMID 30091168.
  10. Ghodsi S, Jafarian Z. A review on translucent zirconia. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(2):62-74. doi: 10.1922/EJPRD_01759Ghodsi13, PMID 29797847.
  11. Tinschert J, Zwez D, Marx R, Anusavice KJ. Structural reliability of alumina-, feldspar-, leucite-, mica- and zirconia-based ceramics. J Dent. 2000;28(7):529-35. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00030-0, PMID 10960757.
  12. Venturini AB, Prochnow C, Pereira GKR, Segala RD, Kleverlaan CJ, Valandro LF. Fatigue performance of adhesively cemented glass-, hybrid- and resin-ceramicmaterials for CAD/CAM monolithic restorations. Dent Mater. 2019;35(4):534-42. doi: 10.1016/j. dental.2019.01.013, PMID 30686711.
  13. Albero A, Pascual A, Camps I, Grau-Benitez M. Comparative characterization of a novel CAD/CAM polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7(4):e495-500. doi: 10.4317/jced.52521, PMID 26535096.
  14. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Reymus M, Mehl A, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of indirect particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM partial crowns after 24 months. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(8):694-9. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12582, PMID 28422359.
  15. Awad MM, Albedaiwi L, Almahdy A, Khan R, Silikas N, Hatamleh MM, Alkhtani FM, Alrahlah A. Effect of universal adhesives on microtensile bond strength to hybridceramic. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0865-7, PMID 31387557.

JPID – The journal of Prosthetic and Implant Dentistry / Volume 6 Issue 2 / Jan–Apr 2023

Copyright © 2017-25 Indian Prosthodontic Society Kerala State Branch | IPSKERALA.COM | Powered by Dentaura.Com