Methods
A total of 80 human maxillary premolar teeth were assigned into 8 groups (n = 10) according to material type (either lithium disilicate or zirconia) and type of resin cement (either LinkForce or Panavia SA) with preheating temperature at 54 °C or at room temperature (25 °C). Teeth were prepared and restored with either lithium disilicate or zirconia restorations. After cementation, specimens were thermal cycled (10,000 cycles, 5 °C/55 °C), then load cycled for 240,000 cycles (50 N). Each specimen was statically loaded until fracture and the load (N) at fracture was recorded, then the failure mode was detected. Statistical analysis of data was performed (p ≤ 0.05).
Results
There was no significant difference (p = 0.978) in fracture mean values between LinkForce and Panavia SA. Statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was revealed between fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations cemented with LinkForce at 25 °C and at 54 °C; however there was no significant difference (p = 0.92) between the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations cemented with Panavia SA used at 25 °C and at 54 °C. Regarding the interaction between ceramic material, cement type, and cement preheating, there was no significant effect (p > 0.05) in fracture resistance. The cement type does not influence the fracture resistance of ceramic restorations. Preheating of resin cement has negatively influenced the fracture resistance of all tested groups, except for lithium disilicate cemented using LinkForce cement.