The influence of pre-heating the restoration and luting agent on the flexural strength of indirect ceramic and composite restorations

Abstract

Background

This study investigated the impact of luting procedure and restoration thicknesses on the flexural strength of CAD/CAM restorations. Traditional luting agents have been questioned in favor of pre-heated resin composites or flowable composites.

Materials and Methods

400 disc-shaped restorations (lithium disilicate [IPS e.max CAD] or resin composite [Tetric CAD, Ivoclar]) were cemented onto dentin analog discs using different procedures (n = 20): dual-curing resin cement (Panavia V5), light-curing resin cement (Panavia Veneer LC), pre-heated resin composite (Clearfil™ AP-X) with or without pre-heated restoration, and high-filled flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty™ Flow). The biaxial flexural strength was calculated.

Results

There were significant effects of material, thickness, and luting procedure on flexural strength (p < 0.001). Resin composite specimens exhibited lower flexural strength (90 MPa) compared to lithium disilicate specimens (571 MPa), with thicker restorations (338 MPa) being stronger than thinner ones (323 MPa). Light-curing cement showed the highest strength (408.8 MPa)^A, followed by dual-curing cement (362 MPa)^B, pre-heated cement with pre-heated composite (318 MPa)^C, pre-heated composite (304 MPa)^C, and flowable resin composite (259 MPa)^D. The light-curing cement yielded similar results to the pre-heated resin composite associated or not with the pre-heated crown for the thicker lithium disilicate specimens, whereas for the thinner lithium disilicate specimens all luting procedures performed similarly. Thin resin composite discs showed higher flexural strength when luted with light-curing cement, whereas the luting procedure had less influence for the thicker restorations.

Conclusion

Luting procedures impact the flexural strength of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate and resin composite restorations. Pre-heated resin composite, with or without pre-heated restoration, can replace dual-curing cement. Nevertheless, light-curing cement is superior for resin composite and 1.5 mm lithium disilicate restorations.

Key-messages

1. Different luting procedures significantly impact the flexural strength of CAD/CAM lithium disilicate and resin composite restorations, with light-curing cement demonstrating superior performance for specific thicknesses.

2. Pre-heated resin composites, either with or without pre-heated restorations, offer a viable alternative to conventional dual-curing cement for bonding indirect restorations, presenting potential clinical advantages.

3. Restoration thickness plays a crucial role in the mechanical response of restorations, with thinner resin composite restorations benefiting from dual- or light-curing, while thicker ones are less sensitive to luting procedure variations.