Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared
Tareq Hajaj1,2, Ioana Elena Lile3, Radu Marcel Negru2,4
1Department of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
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® 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 (p = 0.752). However, the non-prepared restorations exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than their prepared counterparts (p = 0.004 for zirconia; p = 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.
