, Volume 107, Issue 3, pp 360–367 | Cite as

Comparative evaluation of the mechanical properties of CAD/CAM dental blocks

  • Ruizhi Yin
  • Yu-Kyoung Kim
  • Yong-Seok Jang
  • Jung-Jin Lee
  • Min-Ho Lee
  • Tae-Sung BaeEmail author
Original Article


This study compares the mechanical properties of commercially available CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing) millable dental blocks including Vita Enamic, Lava Ultimate, and MAZIC Duro. All the discs were cut in dimension of 1.2 mm in thickness and 12 mm in diameter, ground up to #1200 Sic papers and polished. The biaxial flexure strength of the ceramic discs was measured after thermocycling treatment and the broken surfaces were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The discs were brushed using a toothbrush testing machine under a 150 g load. Surface roughness and morphology were determined after toothbrushing cycles. Finally, the friction and wear behavior of the materials against an opposing tooth were studied using a reciprocating pin-on-plate test configuration. The vertical loss of dental cusp was measured, and the surface image was examined using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). The biaxial flexural strength data were subjected to Weibull analysis. To compare the significance between the groups, all data were analyzed by one-way analysis (ANOVA). The biaxial flexural strength of the Lava Ultimate and MAZIC Duro materials is significantly higher than that of Vita Enamic. In addition, Lava Ultimate and MAZIC Duro exhibited significantly smoother surfaces than that of Vita Enamic after toothbrushing. Lava Ultimate and MAZIC Duro also showed less wear to the opposing tooth than that of Vita Enamic. In addition, Lava Ultimate possesses more suitable mechanical properties than the Vita Enamic and Mazic Duro for use in oral clinical prosthesis.


Hybrid ceramic Nano-composite resin Biaxial flexural strength Surface roughness Wear test 



This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57:236–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boitelle P, Mawussi B, Tapie L, Fromentin O. A systematic review of CAD/CAM fit restoration evaluations. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:853–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 2013;26:115–20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu P-R, Essig ME. Panorama of dental CAD/CAM restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Jamesburg, NJ 1995). 2008;29:482–84.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:45–64. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore memorial lecture. review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM–produced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc Am Dental Assoc. 2006;137:14S–21S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M, et al. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014;33:705–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin MP. Material and clinical considerations for full-coverage indirect restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012;33:2–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koller M, Arnetzl GV, Holly L, Arnetzl G. Lava ultimate resin nano ceramic for CAD/CAM: customization case study. Int J Comput Dent. 2012;15:159–64.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamanel K, Çaglar A, GÜLSAHI K, Özden UA. Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:661–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Höland W, Schweiger M, Watzke R, Peschke A, Kappert H. Ceramics as biomaterials for dental restoration. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5:729–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GÁP, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1276–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15:625–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matinlinna JP. Handbook of oral biomaterials. CRC press, Boca Raton 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ritter JE. Predicting lifetimes of materials and material structures. Dent Mater Elsevier. 1995;11:142–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelly JR. Perspectives on strength. Dent Mater. 1995;11:103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Zwaag S. The concept of filament strength and the Weibull modulus. J Test Eval ASTM Int. 1989;17:292–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choi BJ, Kim SC, Im YW, Lee JW, Lee HH. Uniaxial and biaxial flexural strengths of resin-composite CAD-CAM blocks. Dent Mater. 2015;31:e31–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bakke M, Holm B, Jensen BL, Michler L, Møller E. Unilateral, isometric bite force in 8-68-year-old women and men related to occlusal factors. Eur J Oral Sci Wiley Online Library. 1990;98:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Bite force and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand Taylor Francis. 1977;35:297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alonso V, Caserio M. A clinical study of direct composite full-coverage crowns: long-term results. Oper Dent. 2012;37:432–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Preissner S, Kostka E, Blunck U. A noninvasive treatment of amelogenesis imperfecta. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2013;44.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Güth J, Almeida E, Silva JS, Ramberger M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Treatment concept with CAD/CAM-fabricated high-density polymer temporary restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24:310–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harrington E, Jones PA, Fisher SEWH. Toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion-a suggested standard method. Br Dent J. 1982;153:135–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006;22:702–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hara AT, Livengood SV, Lippert F, Eckert GJ, Ungar PS. Dental surface texture characterization based on erosive tooth wear processes. J Dent Res. 2016;95:537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Figueiredo-Pina CG, Patas N, Canhoto J, Cláudio R, Olhero SM, Serro AP, et al. Tribological behaviour of unveneered and veneered lithium disilicate dental material. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;53:226–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lambrechts P, Debels E, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. How to simulate wear?: overview of existing methods. Dent Mater. 2006;22:693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kadokawa A, Suzuki S, Tanaka T. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96:258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harrison A. Wear of combinations of acrylic resin and porcelain, on an abrasion testing machine. J Oral Rehabil. 1978;5:111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elmaria A, Goldstein G, Vijayaraghavan T, Legeros RZ, Hittelman EL. An evaluation of wear when enamel is opposed by various ceramic materials and gold. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96:345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, Schneider-Feyrer S, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of dental ceramics after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012;10:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Osiewicz MA, Werner A, Pytko-Polonczyk J, Roeters FJM, Kleverlaan CJ. Contact-and contact-free wear between various resin composites. Dent Mater. 2015;31:134–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hahnel S, Schultz S, Trempler C, Ach B, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Two-body wear of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Condon JRFJL. Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater. 1996;12(4):218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent. 1996;24:141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Dental Biomaterials, School of DentistryChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Oral Bio-Science, School of DentistryChonbuk National University and Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations