Comparative analysis of fracture resistance and film thickness between flowable composites and resin cement luted lithium disilicate ceramics

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the fracture resistance and film thickness of the different composite cements that can be used with lithium disilicate-based ceramic restoration (IPS e.max CAD). 

Materials and Methods: Twenty-five (25) IPS e.max CAD discs (A2, shade HT/C14) with a 10 mm diameter and 1 mm thickness were randomly assigned to five experimental groups (n = 5) according to luting agent G-ænial^TM  Universal Injectable (GC Corporation, Japan), Clearfil^TM AP-X Esthetics FLOW (Kuraray Noritake, Japan), Beautifil injectable X (Shofu Inc., Japan), and Filtek^TM Supreme Flowable (3M Oral Care, USA). Flowable composites were bonded between the ceramic disc and dentin. The control group sample was dual-cured resin cement, Multilink N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein). A universal testing machine (Model LR10K; Lloyd Instruments, Fareham, UK) was used to conduct a three-point bending test to determine the fracture resistance. The film thickness was analyzed using scanning  electron microscopy (SEM, JSM 6610LV, JEOL, Peabody, PA, USA). The data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA.

Results: Flowable composites presented fracture resistance values comparable to the resin cement, with acceptable film thickness values meeting ISO requirements, except for Filtek^TM Supreme Flowable. However, no statistically significant differences were found among groups (p>0.05)

Conclusions: Flowable composites could be potential alternatives for ceramic luting, although further studies are needed to confirm their long-term clinical performance.