Fracture strength of zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations following endodontic access

Academic Article


  • Objectives: To compare the fracture load of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns prepared with endodontic access with fine and coarse diamond instruments. Materials and methods: 0.8 mm (3Y zirconia) or 1 mm (lithium disilicate) crowns were luted to resin composite dies with resin-modified glass ionomer (zirconia) or self-adhesive resin (lithium disilicate) cement. A 2.5 mm endodontic access hole was placed in each crown with fine (8369DF.31.025FOOTBALL) or coarse (6379 DC.31.023FOOTBALL) diamond instruments and restored with composite. A control group was prepared without access holes. Crowns were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles (5–55°C) and tested in compression with a steel indenter until failure (n = 8/group). A one-way ANOVA and Dunnett 2-sided test (alpha = 0.05) compared differences in fracture load between groups. Results: For zirconia, there was no statistical difference between the control group (2335 ± 160 N) and coarse diamond group (2345 ± 246 N); however, the fine diamond group (2077 ± 216 N) was significantly lower. For lithium disilicate, there was no statistical difference between the control group (2113 ± 183 N) and the fine (2049 ± 105 N) or coarse (2240 ± 118 N) groups. Conclusions: 3Y zirconia crowns became weaker when accessed with a fine diamond instrument. There was no negative effect of the endodontic access with bonded lithium disilicate crowns. Clinical significance: Conservative endodontic access openings in high-strength ceramic restorations do not have a negative effect on their static fracture load. The coarse zirconia-cutting diamond rotary instrument is more efficient and has a less detrimental effect on the strength of the crowns than a fine diamond rotary instrument.
  • Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Lucas TJ; Lawson NC; Englert B; Goldstein K; Goldstein R
  • Start Page

  • 534
  • End Page

  • 540
  • Volume

  • 34
  • Issue

  • 3