Fracture Strength of Endocrowns Fabricated From Three Different Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Ceramic Materials: An In-Vitro Study

Introduction: Endocrown restorations have increased in popularity in recent years due to the advancement of both adhesive and restorative materials. The clinical success of endocrowns depends on several factors, including preparation design, material selection, fracture resistance, and marginal adaptation. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the fracture strength of endocrown restorations fabricated from three different computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) materials. Methods: Thirty extracted mandibular first molars were selected. The teeth underwent conventional root canal treatment before being prepared for endocrown restoration. The teeth were allocated to three groups (n=10), corresponding to each of the three ceramic materials used to fabricate the endocrowns they would receive. The ceramic materials used were zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic (VITA Suprinity, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany), polymer-infiltrated hybrid ceramic (VITA Enamic, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany), and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The specimens were scanned, and the digital impressions were transferred into design software to construct the endocrowns. The endocrowns were then milled and cemented. A universal testing machine (5969L3504, Instron, USA) was used for the fracture strength test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until catastrophic failure occurred. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Results: The one-way analysis of the variance test indicated a significant difference in the fracture strength between the different ceramic groups tested (P=0.037). The Tukey posthoc test showed that the IPS e.max CAD group had marginally higher fracture strength values than the VITA Enamic group (P=055). No significant differences in fracture strength values were found between the VITA Enamic and VITA Suprinity groups or between the VITA Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The reported fracture strength values for all the tested materials were higher than the strength required to resist masticatory forces. Therefore, endocrowns fabricated using VITA Enamic, IPS e.max CAD, and VITA Suprinity CAD/CAM materials present restorations with a clinically acceptable fracture strength.