Comparative analysis of clinical characteristics of non-removable denture structures made using e.max Press and e.max CAD ceramic materials

Abstract

Restoring hard dental tissue is one of the most pressing issues in modern dentistry. It is well known that ceramics, as a structural material for the fabrication of fixed dentures, exhibit ideal biocompatibility, having no effect on the tissues of the denture bed, and also allow for the fabrication of highly aesthetic structures capable of withstanding chewing pressure. Today, the dental market offers a wide range of ceramic materials for all types of indirect restorations. Ivoclar Vivadent (Liechtenstein) developed the IPS e.max ceramic system, which has found wide application in dental practice. Of particular interest are lithium-disilicate ceramic materials, structures from which are fabricated using pressing (IPS e.max Press) and milling (IPS e.max CAD) technologies. It is well known that restorations made from lithium disilicate-reinforced glass-ceramics exhibit superior properties, such as translucency, color stability, and marginal fit. However, it is also necessary to consider the specific manufacturing techniques used for IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD restorations, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, to optimize the choice of prosthetic fabrication method based on the individual patient’s needs. The aim of this study is to substantiate the choice of structural material and the fabrication technology for all-ceramic restorations based on an analysis of the characteristics of IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD. IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD materials, despite their similar composition (lithium disilicate), have significant differences. Pressed ceramics exhibit greater strength than CAD ceramics, especially in flexural strength. Pressing provides better marginal fit of restorations compared to milling, although both methods meet clinical requirements. CAD ceramics demonstrate more stable color than pressed ceramics. The IPS e.max system demonstrates high long-term efficacy (over 5.5 years), with a success rate of 94.2% across various restorations. Successful use of IPS e.max requires consideration of the impact of production methods (pressing and milling) on strength, fit, and esthetics. Achieving optimal results requires careful evaluation of the characteristics and selection of a strategy for each clinical case.