Previous Article in Journal
Preclinical Evaluation and Advancements in Vascularized Bone Tissue Engineering
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bonding Protocols for Lithium Disilicate Veneers: A Narrative Review and Case Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study

1
Department of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, Romania
2
Research Center in Dental Medicine Using Conventional and Alternative Technologies, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Timisoara, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, Romania
3
Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, “Vasile Goldis” Western University of Arad, 310025 Arad, Romania
4
Department of Mechanics and Strength of Materials, Polytechnic University of Timișoara, 2 Piata Victoriei 2, 300006 Timisoara, Romania
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timisoara, Romania
6
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Vasile Goldiș” Western University of Arad, 86 L. Rebreanu St., 310414 Arad, Romania
7
National Institute for Economic Research “Costin C. Kiritescu” of the Romanian Academy/Center for Mountain Economy, 49 Petreni St., 725700 Vatra Dornei, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Biomimetics 2025, 10(7), 413; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070413 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 4 June 2025 / Revised: 13 June 2025 / Accepted: 19 June 2025 / Published: 21 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomimetic Bonded Restorations for Dental Applications: 2nd Edition)

Abstract

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.
Keywords: adhesion; zirconia; ceramic; fixed partial denture; Maryland bridge; non-prepared; minimally invasive dentistry adhesion; zirconia; ceramic; fixed partial denture; Maryland bridge; non-prepared; minimally invasive dentistry

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hajaj, T.; Lile, I.E.; Negru, R.M.; Niculescu, S.T.; Stuparu, S.; Rominu, M.; Sinescu, C.; Albu, P.; Titihazan, F.; Veja, I. Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Biomimetics 2025, 10, 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070413

AMA Style

Hajaj T, Lile IE, Negru RM, Niculescu ST, Stuparu S, Rominu M, Sinescu C, Albu P, Titihazan F, Veja I. Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Biomimetics. 2025; 10(7):413. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070413

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hajaj, Tareq, Ioana Elena Lile, Radu Marcel Negru, Serban Talpos Niculescu, Sami Stuparu, Mihai Rominu, Cosmin Sinescu, Paul Albu, Florina Titihazan, and Ioana Veja. 2025. "Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study" Biomimetics 10, no. 7: 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070413

APA Style

Hajaj, T., Lile, I. E., Negru, R. M., Niculescu, S. T., Stuparu, S., Rominu, M., Sinescu, C., Albu, P., Titihazan, F., & Veja, I. (2025). Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Biomimetics, 10(7), 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070413

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop