Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 4, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Fracture resistance of lab composite versus all-ceramic restorations in class II inlay cavity preparations: An in
Smridhi Bhanot1, Pardeep Mahajan1, Nitika Bajaj2
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Genesis Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Ferozepur, Punjab, India.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of inlay preparations restored with indirect lab composite, conventional and translucent monolithic zirconia-based ceramics.
Materials And Methods:
Fifty freshly extracted human maxillary premolars were selected for the study. Standardized inlay cavities were prepared and restored with indirect lab composite, conventional monolithic zirconia-based ceramic and translucent monolithic zirconia-based ceramic. After restoration each sample was subjected to axial compressive load with Universal testing machine. The force required to induce fracture was recorded in Newton (N).
Statistical Analysis Used:
The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test and Post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparison test.
Results:
Results revealed that fracture resistance of prepared inlay cavities restored with conventional monolithic zirconia-based ceramics was found to be best followed by other groups. Group I > Group IV > Group V > Group III > Group II.
Conclusion:
The fracture resistance of conventional monolithic zirconia-based ceramic inlays and translucent monolithic zirconia-based ceramic inlays were comparable with intact teeth but, indirect lab composite inlays showed lower fracture resistance than all.
