Factory crystallized silicates for monolithic metal-free restorations: a flexural strength and translucency comparison test: A Flexural Strength and Translucency Comparison Test

Flexural strength (FS) and translucency (Contrast Ratio-CR) of three different factory crystallized silica-based glass ceramics, Celtra Duo (CD), N!ce (NI) and Li-Si Block, a lithium disilicate, IPS e.max CAD (LD), and a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic, Empress CAD (EM), in two different translucencies (HT and LT) for use in chairside dental restorations have been compared. CAD blocks of the materials were cut into beams and tiles and processed following manufacturers’ instructions. The beams were tested (3-PBT) to determine flexural strength, Weibull characteristic strength, and Weibull modulus; and tiles were tested to determine CR. All data were statistically analyzed. In addition, SEM analysis of the materials was performed. Differences in flexural strength (FS) and translucency (CR) between the materials were found to be statistically significant. FS decreased as follows (MPa): LDHT 350.88 ± 19.77 (a) = LDLT 343.57 ± 18.48 (a) > LSLT 202.15 ± 17.41 (b) = LSHT 196.93 ± 8.87 > NIHT 186.69 ± 13.06 (c) = CDLT 184.73 ± 13.63 (c) = CDHT 174.15 ± 21.76 (c) = NILT 172.12 ± 11.98 (c) > EMHT 131.16 ± 13.33 (e) = EMLT 127.65 ± 11.09. CR decreased as follows (mean ± sd): CDLT 74.1 ± 1.1 (a); LSLT 74.0 ± 1.1 (ab); NILT 73.3 ± 0.8 (ab); EMLT 73.0 ± 1.5 (ab); NIHT 72.4 ± 1.0 (bc); LDLT 71.3 ± 1.1 (bc); LTHT 65.2 ± 0.9 (de); LSHT 63.8 ± 1.1 (def); EMHT 636 ± 1.2 (ef); CDHT 62.2 ± 0.8 (f). Our findings show that factory-crystallized lithium silicate glass ceramics fulfill ISO standards for Classes 1 and 2. Therefore, they can be considered viable alternatives to produce single-unit restorations with a chairside procedure not requiring thermal treatment.