The effect of different materials and cavity designs on fracture resistance of ceramic partial coverage

Background Two intra‐coronal preparation designs with varying extensions of cuspal coverage can perform differently regarding their fracture resistance against introral forces. Methods Two materials (IPS e‐max CAD [EX], VITA ENAMIC [EN]), and two different preparation designs (EX‐D1), (EX‐D2), (EN‐D1), and (EN‐D2) were investigated to compare their fracture resistance. A total of 40 (n = 40) caries free human mandibular molars were used. All the prepared samples were scanned using CEREC Omnicam scanner and the preparations were checked by the software for any sharpness and undercuts before restoration designing and fabrication. All restorations were milled using Cerec MCXL 4.4 milling machine. Duo‐Link resin cement was used for cementation. After thermocycling and chewing simulation, all samples were loaded in the Universal testing machine in order to evaluate fracture resistance of all samples. Results Fracture resistance testing revealed that e‐max CAD (2134 N) showed statistically significantly higher mean fracture resistance values than Vita Enamic (1728 N). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference between mean fracture resistances between the two tested designs. Conclusions Within the confines of this investigation, it can be said that although preparation design had no appreciable impact on fracture resistance, the CAD/CAM ceramic material utilized did. Clinical Significance When restoring compound cavitties indirectly; a conservative defect oriented approach should be used. Glass Ceramic are prefered as restorative material.