Objective: This study aims to evaluate the influence of pontic length and design on the fracture resistance of zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). By assessing different span lengths under controlled mechanical loading conditions, the research seeks to provide insights into optimizing the structural integrity of zirconia dental bridges. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 zirconia bridges were fabricated and tested in vitro. Ten bridges were designed to replace a single missing molar (tooth 46), with a pontic span of 11 mm, while the remaining ten were crafted for two missing teeth (35 and 36), featuring a longer pontic span of 17 mm. The zirconia frameworks were milled using the Wieland Zenotec^® Select Hybrid system and cemented onto metal abutments with Voco Meron Plus QM resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The specimens were subjected to occlusal loading using a ZwickRoell ProLine Z005 testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture occurred. Results: The mechanical testing revealed a significant correlation between pontic length and fracture resistance. The mean fracture resistance for three-unit bridges (single pontic) was 3703 N, whereas four-unit bridges (double pontic) exhibited a significantly lower resistance of 1713 N. These findings indicate that increased span length reduces the fracture resistance of zirconia restorations due to higher stress accumulation and reduced rigidity. Conclusions: This study underscores the importance of pontic length and design in determining the fracture resistance of zirconia restorations. Shorter spans exhibit greater structural stability, reinforcing the need for careful treatment planning when designing multi-unit zirconia bridges. By optimizing bridge parameters, clinicians can improve clinical outcomes and extend the longevity of zirconia prostheses in restorative dentistry.

Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the influence of cervical margin design—tangential versus chamfer—on the fracture resistance of monolithic crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramics. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted human molars were randomly assigned to two preparation types: chamfer and tangential. Each group was restored with CAD/CAM-fabricated crowns made from either zirconia (IPS e.max^® ZirCAD Prime) or lithium disilicate (IPS e.max^® CAD), resulting in four subgroups (n = 10). Standardized adhesive cementation protocols were applied. After 24 h storage in distilled water, the specimens underwent static load-to-failure testing using a ZwickRoell ProLine Z005 universal testing machine. Results: Zirconia crowns with chamfer margins exhibited the highest mean fracture resistance (2658 N), while lithium disilicate crowns with tangential margins showed the lowest (1862 N). Chamfer preparation significantly increased the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate crowns (p < 0.01), whereas margin design had no significant effect on zirconia. All restorations exceeded physiological masticatory forces, confirming their clinical viability. Conclusions: Cervical margin design significantly affected the fracture performance of lithium disilicate crowns but not zirconia. Chamfer preparations are recommended when using lithium disilicate to optimize mechanical strength. These findings underscore the importance of preparation geometry in guiding material selection for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations.

The impression materials utilized today in dental medicine offer a good reproducibility and are easily accepted by patients. However, because they are polymer-based, they have issues regarding their dimensional stability. In this respect, the present work proposes a new type of dental impression, which is reinforced with rigid mouthguards. The aim of the study is to test the performances of such new impressions by comparing them to conventional ones—from this critical point of view, of the dimensional stability. Three types of polymeric materials were considered for both types of impressions: alginate, condensation silicone, and addition silicone. In order to obtain the new type of impressions, a manufacturing technique was developed, comprising the following phases: (i) conventional impressions were made; (ii) a plaster model was duplicated, and 15 rigid mouthguards were obtained; (iii) they were inserted in the impression technique, with each mouthguard positioned on the cast before the high-consistency material was inserted in the tray and the practitioner took the impression; (iv) the mouthguard remained in the tray and the low-viscosity material was inserted over the mouthguard; (v) the impression was positioned on the model, and after the material hardened, the mouthguard-reinforced impression was analyzed. In the evaluation of the dimensional stability, rigorous statistical analysis was essential to discern the performance differences between conventional and mouthguard-reinforced dental impressions. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests because of the non-normal distribution of the data. They indicated a statistically significant improvement in the dimensional stability of addition silicone impressions when reinforced with mouthguards (p < 0.05), showcasing superior performance over conventional methods. Conversely, alginate and condensation silicone reinforced impressions did not exhibit the same level of stability improvement, suggesting the need for further optimization of these materials. In conclusion, from the three considered elastomers, addition silicone was found to be the prime candidate for high-precision dental impressions, with the potential to improve their quality from conventional impressions by utilizing the proposed reinforcing technique.

Background and Objectives: Dental adhesives augmented with magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) have been proposed to prevent microleakages. MNPs dispersed in a dental adhesive reduce the thickness of the adhesive layer applied in a magnetic field and enhance the bond strength by favoring the penetration of the adhesive into dentinal tubules. However, the restoration’s color has been found to be affected by the MNPs. This study tests the hypothesis that MNP coating can alleviate the esthetic impact of magnetic dental adhesives. Materials and Methods: We synthesized Fe₃O₄ MNPs with silica coating (MNPs-SiO₂), calcium-based coating (MNPs-Ca), and no coating. Their morphology was studied using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Their chemical composition was assessed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), and magnetic properties were measured using a vibrating sample magnetometer. FTIR spectroscopy was used to evaluate the polymerization of the MNP-laden adhesive. We prepared cavities in molar phantoms divided in four groups (n = 15 each) restored using the same adhesive with different MNP contents: Group 0 (G0)—no MNPs, G1—MNPs-SiO₂, G2—MNPs-Ca, and G3—uncoated MNPs. The restoration’s color was quantified in the CIELAB color space using a dental spectrophotometer. Results: MNPs-SiO₂ were globular, whereas MNPs-Ca had a cubic morphology. The SiO₂ layer was 73.1 nm ± 9.9 nm thick; the Ca(OH)₂ layer was 19.97 nm ± 2.27 nm thick. The saturation magnetization was 18.6 emu/g for MNPs-SiO₂, 1.0 emu/g for MNPs-Ca, and 65.7 emu/g for uncoated MNPs. MNPs had a marginal effect on the adhesive’s photopolymerization. The mean color difference between G0 and G2 was close to the 50:50% acceptability threshold, whereas the other groups were far apart from G0. The mean whiteness index of G2 did not differ significantly from that of G0; G1 deviated marginally from G0, whereas G3 differed significantly from G0. Conclusions: These results suggest that MNP coating can mitigate the influence of MNP-laden dental adhesives on the color of restorations.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present and describe a digital workflow integrating Digital Smile Design (DSD) with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and additive manufacturing technologies for the fabrication of dental preparation guides, focusing on workflow feasibility, design reproducibility, and clinical handling. Materials and Methods: A digital workflow was implemented using intraoral scanning and Exocad DentalCAD 3.1 Elefsina software to design dental preparation guides based on digitally planned restorations. Preparation margins, insertion paths, and minimal material thickness were defined virtually. The guides were fabricated using both subtractive (PMMA milling) and additive (stereolithographic-based 3D printing) manufacturing techniques. Post-processing included chemical cleaning, support removal, additional light curing, and manual finishing. The evaluation was qualitative and descriptive, based on visual inspection, workflow performance, and guide adaptation to printed models. Results: The proposed digital workflow was associated with consistent fabrication of preparation guides and predictable transfer of the virtual design to the manufactured guides. Digital planning facilitated clear visualization of preparation margins and insertion axes, supporting controlled and minimally invasive tooth preparation. The workflow demonstrated good reproducibility and efficient communication between clinician and dental technician. No quantitative measurements or statistical analyses were performed. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this qualitative feasibility study, the integration of DSD with CAD/CAM and 3D printing technologies represents a viable digital approach for designing and fabricating dental preparation guides. The workflow shows potential for improving predictability and communication in restorative dentistry.