Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study
Aim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the adhesive performance of zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations on prepared and non-prepared anterior abutment teeth. While conventional clinical protocols involve abutment tooth preparation, no-preparation (no-prep) restoration...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Biomimetics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/10/7/413 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849406817102200832 |
|---|---|
| author | Tareq Hajaj Ioana Elena Lile Radu Marcel Negru Serban Talpos Niculescu Sami Stuparu Mihai Rominu Cosmin Sinescu Paul Albu Florina Titihazan Ioana Veja |
| author_facet | Tareq Hajaj Ioana Elena Lile Radu Marcel Negru Serban Talpos Niculescu Sami Stuparu Mihai Rominu Cosmin Sinescu Paul Albu Florina Titihazan Ioana Veja |
| author_sort | Tareq Hajaj |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the adhesive performance of zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations on prepared and non-prepared anterior abutment teeth. While conventional clinical protocols involve abutment tooth preparation, no-preparation (no-prep) restorations have emerged as a viable, minimally invasive alternative. This study compared the adhesion fracture resistance (N) of zirconia restorations on non-prepared enamel surfaces with those on prepared surfaces exposing the dentin. Additionally, the zirconia restorations were compared with lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations, a more common yet costly alternative. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted anterior teeth were allocated into four groups based on preparation type (prepared vs. non-prepared) and material (zirconia vs. lithium disilicate). Each group received cantilevered single-unit FPDs fabricated via CAD/CAM and adhesively cemented using Variolink<sup>®</sup> Esthetic DC. Standardized loading was applied using a universal testing machine, and the fracture resistance was recorded. Results: The fracture resistance ranged from 190 to 447 N in the zirconia groups and from 219 to 412 N in the lithium disilicate groups. When comparing all the zirconia versus all the lithium disilicate ceramic restorations, regardless of tooth preparation, no statistically significant difference was found (<i>p</i> = 0.752). However, the non-prepared restorations exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than their prepared counterparts (<i>p</i> = 0.004 for zirconia; <i>p</i> = 0.012 for lithium disilicate ceramic). All the failures were attributed to tooth fracture, except one zirconia restoration, with no debonding observed. Conclusions: Both zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations demonstrated reliable adhesive performance when bonded using appropriate surface conditioning and adhesive protocols. Interestingly, the non-prepared designs exhibited higher fracture resistance than the prepared abutments, highlighting their potential advantage in minimally invasive restorative dentistry. Zirconia Maryland bridges, in particular, represent a cost-effective and mechanically resilient option for anterior single-tooth replacement. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-339f65db7a9446d8b8edc7d229e69a24 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2313-7673 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Biomimetics |
| spelling | doaj-art-339f65db7a9446d8b8edc7d229e69a242025-08-20T03:36:15ZengMDPI AGBiomimetics2313-76732025-06-0110741310.3390/biomimetics10070413Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative StudyTareq Hajaj0Ioana Elena Lile1Radu Marcel Negru2Serban Talpos Niculescu3Sami Stuparu4Mihai Rominu5Cosmin Sinescu6Paul Albu7Florina Titihazan8Ioana Veja9Department of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, “Vasile Goldiș” Western University of Arad, 310025 Arad, RomaniaResearch Center in Dental Medicine Using Conventional and Alternative Technologies, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Vasile Goldiș” Western University of Arad, 86 L. Rebreanu St., 310414 Arad, RomaniaDepartment of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, RomaniaDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, “Vasile Goldiș” Western University of Arad, 310025 Arad, RomaniaAim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the adhesive performance of zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations on prepared and non-prepared anterior abutment teeth. While conventional clinical protocols involve abutment tooth preparation, no-preparation (no-prep) restorations have emerged as a viable, minimally invasive alternative. This study compared the adhesion fracture resistance (N) of zirconia restorations on non-prepared enamel surfaces with those on prepared surfaces exposing the dentin. Additionally, the zirconia restorations were compared with lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations, a more common yet costly alternative. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted anterior teeth were allocated into four groups based on preparation type (prepared vs. non-prepared) and material (zirconia vs. lithium disilicate). Each group received cantilevered single-unit FPDs fabricated via CAD/CAM and adhesively cemented using Variolink<sup>®</sup> Esthetic DC. Standardized loading was applied using a universal testing machine, and the fracture resistance was recorded. Results: The fracture resistance ranged from 190 to 447 N in the zirconia groups and from 219 to 412 N in the lithium disilicate groups. When comparing all the zirconia versus all the lithium disilicate ceramic restorations, regardless of tooth preparation, no statistically significant difference was found (<i>p</i> = 0.752). However, the non-prepared restorations exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than their prepared counterparts (<i>p</i> = 0.004 for zirconia; <i>p</i> = 0.012 for lithium disilicate ceramic). All the failures were attributed to tooth fracture, except one zirconia restoration, with no debonding observed. Conclusions: Both zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations demonstrated reliable adhesive performance when bonded using appropriate surface conditioning and adhesive protocols. Interestingly, the non-prepared designs exhibited higher fracture resistance than the prepared abutments, highlighting their potential advantage in minimally invasive restorative dentistry. Zirconia Maryland bridges, in particular, represent a cost-effective and mechanically resilient option for anterior single-tooth replacement.https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/10/7/413adhesionzirconiaceramicfixed partial dentureMaryland bridgenon-prepared |
| spellingShingle | Tareq Hajaj Ioana Elena Lile Radu Marcel Negru Serban Talpos Niculescu Sami Stuparu Mihai Rominu Cosmin Sinescu Paul Albu Florina Titihazan Ioana Veja Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study Biomimetics adhesion zirconia ceramic fixed partial denture Maryland bridge non-prepared |
| title | Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study |
| title_full | Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study |
| title_fullStr | Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study |
| title_short | Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study |
| title_sort | adhesive performance of zirconia and lithium disilicate maryland cantilever restorations on prepared and non prepared abutment teeth an in vitro comparative study |
| topic | adhesion zirconia ceramic fixed partial denture Maryland bridge non-prepared |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/10/7/413 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tareqhajaj adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT ioanaelenalile adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT radumarcelnegru adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT serbantalposniculescu adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT samistuparu adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT mihairominu adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT cosminsinescu adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT paulalbu adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT florinatitihazan adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy AT ioanaveja adhesiveperformanceofzirconiaandlithiumdisilicatemarylandcantileverrestorationsonpreparedandnonpreparedabutmentteethaninvitrocomparativestudy |