Fracture force of CAD/CAM resin composite crowns after in vitro aging

  • Martin RosentrittEmail author
  • Stefanie Krifka
  • Thomas Strasser
  • Verena Preis
Original Article



The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of material, preparation, and pre-treatment on the aging and fracture force of CAD/CAM resin composite molar crowns.

Materials and methods

CAD/CAM molar crowns (n = 80) were milled from four resin composites (Block HC, Shofu; Lava Ultimate, 3 M; Grandio Blocs, Voco; and Tetric CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, with/without sandblasting). Extracted human teeth were prepared with optimal preparation (height 6–8 mm, angle 6–8°) or worst-case preparation (height 3.5–4 mm, angle 10–15°). Both groups were prepared with a 1-mm deep cervical circular shoulder. Crowns were adhesively bonded after corresponding tooth treatment required for the individual adhesive systems (Table 1). Specimens were aged for 90 days in water storage (37 °C) and subsequently subjected to thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML 3000 × 5 °C/3000 × 55 °C, 2 min each cycle, H20 distilled; 1.2 × 106 cycles à 50 N, 1.6 Hz). De-bonding and fracture force was determined. Statistics: one-way-ANOVA; post hoc Bonferroni, α = 0.05.


Four crowns of Lava Ultimate with worst-case preparation de-bonded during TCML. Individual crowns without sandblasting treatment (3x Tetric CAD with optimal preparation; 1x Tetric CAD with worst-case preparation) de-bonded during water storage. One crown of Grandio Blocs with optimal preparation showed a small chipping during TCML. All other crowns survived TCML and water storage without failure. Fracture forces differed between 1272 ± 211 N (Lava Ultimate) and 3061 ± 521 N (Tetric CAD). All Grandio Blocs and Tetric CAD crowns revealed significantly (p ≤ 0.023) higher fracture forces than Block HC or Lava Ultimate crowns. No significantly different (p > 0.05) fracture forces were found between optimal or worst-case preparation/fit groups.


De-bonding during water storage and TCML was dependent on material and crown pre-treatment. Therefore, surface roughening seems strongly required. Fracture forces were not influenced by preparation but by the type of material.

Clinical relevance

Clinical success and de-bonding of CAD/CAM resin composite crowns is strongly influenced by the type of material and its pre-treatment.


CAD/CAM Resin composite Resin-based material Preparation Fit CAD/CAM bloc Dental material TCML Aging Storage 



The authors thank Ivoclar Vivadent for supporting this investigation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors./All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed./All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M et al (2014) Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 33(5):705–710. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awada A, Nathanson D (2015) Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 114(4):587–593. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmermann M, Koller C, Mehl A, Hickel R (2017) Indirect zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic CAD/CAM restorations: preliminary clinical results after 12 months. Quintessence Int 48(1):19–25. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ (2014) Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res 93(12):1232–1234. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimmermann M, Koller C, Reymus M et al (2017) Clinical evaluation of indirect particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM partial crowns after 24 months. J Prosthodont. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hussain B, Le Thieu MK, Johnsen GF et al (2017) Can CAD/CAM resin blocks be considered as substitute for conventional resins? Dent Mater 33(12):1362–1370. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Trottmann A et al (2013) Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent 109(5):325–332. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wimmer T, Huffmann AMS, Eichberger M et al (2016) Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mater 32(6):36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hampe R, Theelke B, Lümkemann N et al (2019) Fracture toughness analysis of ceramic and resin composite CAD/CAM material. Oper Dent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belli R, Wendler M, de Ligny D, Cicconi MR, Petschelt A, Peterlik H, Lohbauer U (2017) Chairside CAD/CAM materials. Part 1: measurement of elastic constants and microstructural characterization. Dent Mater 33(1):84–98. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wendler M, Belli R, Petschelt A, Mevec D, Harrer W, Lube T, Danzer R, Lohbauer U (2017) Chairside CAD/CAM materials. Part 2: flexural strength testing. Dent Mater 33(1):99–109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Güth JF (2015) Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 55:1–11. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Krifka S (2019) In-vitro performance of CAD/CAM crowns with insufficient preparation design. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 90:269–274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ikeda H, Nagamatsu Y, Shimizu H (2019) Data on changes in flexural strength and elastic modulus of dental CAD/CAM composites after deterioration tests. Data Brief 24:103889. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benalcázar Jalkh EB, Machado CM, Gianinni M et al (2019) Effect of thermocycling on biaxial flexural strength of CAD/CAM, bulk fill, and conventional resin composite materials. Oper Dent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Shatti RA, Dashti GH, Philip S et al (2019) Size or hierarchical dependence of the elastic modulus of three ceramic-composite CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hampe R, Lumkemann N, Sener B et al (2018) The effect of artificial aging on Martens hardness and indentation modulus of different dental CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 86:191–198. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ (2018) Does artificial aging affect mechanical properties of CAD/CAM composite materials. J Prosthodont Res 62(1):65–74. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mourouzis P, Andreasidou E, Samanidou V et al (2019) Short-term and long-term release of monomers from newly developed resin-modified ceramics and composite resin CAD-CAM blocks. J Prosthet Dent.
  20. 20.
    Alamoush RA, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N et al (2019) Viscoelastic stability of pre-cured resin-composite CAD/CAM structures. Dent Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Vermeulen KM et al (2015) Clinical bonding of resin nano ceramic restorations to zirconia abutments: a case series within a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohbauer U, Belli R, Cune MS et al (2017) Fractography of clinically fractured, implant-supported dental computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing crowns. SAGE Open Med Case Rep 5:2050313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamaguchi S, Kani R, Kawakami K, Tsuji M, Inoue S, Lee C, Kiba W, Imazato S (2018) Fatigue behavior and crack initiation of CAD/CAM resin composite molar crowns. Dent Mater 34(10):1578–1584. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimmermann M, Ender A, Egli G et al (2018) Fracture load of CAD/CAM-fabricated and 3D-printed composite crowns as a function of material thickness. Clin Oral Investig. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S (2017) Influence of preparation, fitting, and cementation on the vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM crowns. J Dent 65:70–75. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosentritt M, Hahnel S, Engelhardt F, Behr M, Preis V (2017) In vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant supported molar crowns. Clin Oral Investig 21(4):1213–1219. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preis V, Hahnel S, Behr M, Bein L, Rosentritt M (2017) In-vitro fatigue and fracture testing of CAD/CAM-materials in implant-supported molar crowns. Dent Mater 33(4):427–433. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P et al (2017) Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthet Dent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lim K, Yap AU-J, Agarwalla SV et al (2016) Reliability, failure probability, and strength of resin-based materials for CAD/CAM restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 24(5):447–452. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Latta MA, Miyazaki M (2017) Influence of thermal cycling on flexural properties and simulated wear of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing resin composites. Oper Dent 42(1):101–110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chavali R, Nejat AH, Lawson NC (2016) Machinability of CAD-CAM materials. J Prosthet Dent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krejci I, Daher R (2017) Stress distribution difference between Lava Ultimate full crowns and IPS e.max CAD full crowns on a natural tooth and on tooth-shaped implant abutments. Odontology 105(2):254–256. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Paula Silveira, Alessandra C, Chaves SB, Hilgert LA et al. (2017) Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated composite resin and ceramic crowns scanned by 2 intraoral cameras. J Prosthet Dent 117(3): 386–392. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shembish FA, Tong H, Kaizer M et al (2016) Fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM resin composite molar crowns. Dent Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blackburn C, Rask H, Awada A (2017) Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD-CAM materials after accelerated aging. J Prosthet Dent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eldafrawy M, Ebroin MG, Gailly PA, Nguyen JF, Sadoun MJ, Mainjot AK (2018) Bonding to CAD-CAM composites: an interfacial fracture toughness approach. J Dent Res 97(1):60–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G, Irie M, Yoshida Y, van Meerbeek B (2017) Sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAD-CAM blocks. Dent Mater 33(3):e124–e135. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Flury S, Schmidt SZ, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2016) Dentin bond strength of two resin-ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials and five cements after six months storage. Dent Mater J 35(5):728–735. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Luhrs A-K, Pongprueksa P, de Munck J et al (2014) Curing mode affects bond strength of adhesively luted composite CAD/CAM restorations to dentin. Dent Mater 30(3):281–291. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Poggio C, Pigozzo M, Ceci M et al (2016) Influence of different luting protocols on shear bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing resin nanoceramic material to dentin. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 13(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scharnagl P, Behr M, Rosentritt M et al (1998) Simulation of physiological tooth mobility in in-vitro stress examination of dental restorations in the masticator. J Dent Res 77(5):1260Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rosentritt M, Behr M, Scharnagl P, Handel G, Kolbeck C (2011) Influence of resilient support of abutment teeth on fracture resistance of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 24(5):465–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Varga S, Spalj S, Lapter Varga M, Anic Milosevic S, Mestrovic S, Slaj M (2011) Maximum voluntary molar bite force in subjects with normal occlusion. Eur J Orthod 33(4):427–433. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB (2014) Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 26(6):382–393. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strasser T, Preis V, Behr M, Rosentritt M (2018) Roughness, surface energy, and superficial damages of CAD/CAM materials after surface treatment. Clin Oral Investig 22:2787–2797. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthetic DentistryUKR University Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations