Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026
In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
Published on: March 7, 2014
Fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM veneers fabricated with pre-and fully crystalized lithium disilicate ceramics
Carlos A Jurado1, Jacquelyn S Yeh2, Cristina M P Vidal3
1Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Purpose:
To evaluate the fracture load of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) veneers fabricated with two conventional pre-crystallized and two fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic materials.
Materials And Methods:
Seventy-five chairside CAD-CAM veneers (15 specimens/group) for maxillary right central incisors were fabricated with different lithium disilicate brands: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Cerec Tessera; (4) n!ce Straumann; and (5) GC Initial LiSi Block. Restorations were cemented with resin luting cement (Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar) to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations received 5000 thermal cycles and then were loaded until fracture. Statistical analysis included One-Way ANOVA.
Results:
Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed the highest fracture load value (640 N), followed by fully-crystallized n!ce Straumann (547 N), pre-crystallized Cerec Tessera (503 N), pre-crystallized Amber Mill (476 N), respectively; fully-crystallized GC Initial LiSi Block (431 N) displayed the lowest values. When comparing the fracture load of recent lithium disilicate ceramic material to the e.max group, which acted as the control, significant differences were noted. The LiSi Block GC group, in particular, had considerably higher mean difference values (208.867, p < 0.001, 95% CI [89.63, 328.10]), as did the Amber Mill group (164.200, p = 0.002, 95% CI [44.96, 283.44]) and CEREC Tessera group (137.533, p = 0.016, 95% CI [18.30, 256.77]). The e.max and n!ce Straumann groups had no statistically significant differences in mean scores (92.933, p = 0.198, 95% CI [-26.30, 212.17]). These findings imply that the clinical performance of recent lithium disilicate veneers varies when compared to the e.max CAD group.
Conclusions:
The fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate veneers for maxillary central incisors varies according to the type of ceramic brands. Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed higher fracture load than the recent pre- and fully-crystallized lithium disilicate materials, emphasizing the significance of choosing the right product based on the desired clinical outcome.
