Evaluation of Vertical Marginal Discrepancy and Load-to-Failure of Monolithic Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers Manufactured in Different Thicknesses

Evaluation of Vertical Marginal Discrepancy and Load-to-Failure of Monolithic Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers Manufactured in Different Thicknesses | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluation of Vertical Marginal Discrepancy and Load-to-Failure of Monolithic Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers Manufactured in Different Thicknesses Pınar YILDIZ, Damla Güneş Ünlü, Hasan Murat Aydoğdu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 08 Aug, 2024 Read the published version in BMC Oral Health → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) compared to lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV). Materials and Methods Sixty resin replicas, each prepared with depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, were produced using a 3D printer from acrylic teeth. Laminate veneers of these thicknesses were milled from pre-sintered monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate blocks. The intaglio surface of MZLV was treated with air abrasion using 110 µm diameter silica-modified aluminum oxide particles and ceramic primer, while LDLV was etched and treated with the same agent before cementation with composite resin. Vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) was assessed using a stereomicroscope, and a load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated macroscopically on fractured surfaces. Data were analyzed statistically using Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Results LDLV samples exhibited significantly larger VMD compared to MZLV samples across all thicknesses, especially in cervical, palatal, and mean data. Within the LDLV group, load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses were similar, whereas for 0.5 mm thickness, it was significantly lower. In the MZLV group, load-to-fracture values were lower for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses compared to LDLV, but higher for 0.5 mm thickness. Conclusions Material choice and restoration thickness significantly influence laminate veneer restorations' success. MZLV generally exhibits superior vertical marginal fit compared to LDLV, with varying load-to-failure values across different thicknesses. Clinical management of debonding in MZLV is simpler compared to restoration fracture in LDLV. Clinical relevance: Considering clinical factors, MZLV may be a preferable option to LDLV for this restoration with the thickness of 0.5 mm monolithic zirconia lithium disilicate laminate veneer vertical marginal discrepancy load-to-failure Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Monolithic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) ceramic restorations have become increasingly prevalent in daily practice due to their high accuracy, rapid fabrication methods, and extensive range of available materials [ 1 , 2 ]. Recent studies have indicated that CAD-CAM restorations exhibit superior marginal adaptation compared to conventionally fabricated indirect restorations [ 3 , 4 ]. Also, Laminate veneers (LVs) can be manufactured utilizing CAD-CAM technology [ 5 ]. A variety of materials are employed in the fabrication of monolithic CAD-CAM laminate veneers, including glass ceramics (such as lithium disilicate, leucite-reinforced feldspathic, and feldspathic porcelain), zirconia, resin composite, resilient (hybrid) ceramics, polymer-infiltrated ceramics, and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate [ 6 , 7 ]. However, there is a scarcity of research concerning recently developed materials [ 8 ]. Lithium disilicate has emerged as a leading glass ceramic utilized in dentistry [ 9 ]. Veneers represent one of its notable applications, offering clinicians an optimal balance between aesthetics and strength for all ceramic monolithic restorations [ 10 ]. Caries, cracks, chipping, debonding, esthetic matches, surfaces, marginal discoloration, and marginal defects are the most common complications that may occur at lithium disilicate laminate veneers [ 11 ]. Zirconia laminate veneers, when precision-milled using CAD-CAM technology, offer several advantages. For instance, they are applicable in clinical scenarios involving wide diastema or damaged teeth due to injury or decay, where the inner surface (lingual) remains undamaged. Glass-ceramic veneers have been noted as inappropriate in clinical scenarios where there are traumatic parafunctional occlusal forces, particularly in cases of reverse and edge-to-edge occlusal relationships. These conditions engender loading stress during functional activities, rendering glass-ceramic veneers unsuitable for such cases. Traditional porcelain veneers are delicate and pose challenges in terms of adjustment and contouring before cementation. Nevertheless, the robustness of zirconia enables easier handling, facilitating adjustments of the veneer before cementation [ 12 ]. Moreover, zirconia laminate veneers may be considered when patients desire exceptionally bright teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers in comparison to lithium disilicate laminate veneers. Our investigation involved an in vitro analysis focusing on vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure. The null hypotheses posited that there would be no statistically significant differences between monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) and lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV) of different thicknesses regarding vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Design and Fabrication of Laminate Veneers Three prefabricated acrylic teeth (Maxillary left central, Frasaco GMBH, Germany) were prepared using depth-gauge diamond bars to achieve depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1.0 mm, respectively. To ensure a palatal butt-joint, a 1.5 mm reduction was made from the incisal edge, and preparations were finalized with a chamfer finish line across all depths. Subsequently, the preparations were scanned using a desktop scanner (Freedom HD, DOF, Seoul, Korea), and 60 resin replicas were produced using a 3D printer (NextDent 5100, 3D Systems, NextDent B.V., Soesterberg, The Netherlands). A maxillary left central laminate veneer restoration was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software. The cement thickness was set at 40 µm, and the restoration thicknesses were adjusted to 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, with the restoration extending 1 mm above the cervical edge. Subsequently, laminate veneers were milled from pre-sintered monolithic zirconia (KATANA Zirconia STML Noritake Dental Supply Co., Ltd., Miyoshi, Japan) and lithium disilicate blocks (E-MAX Cad, Ivoclar Vivadent, Shaan, Liechtenstein) using a 5-axis milling machine (Ceramill Motion 2, Amann Girrbach, Austria). Figure 1 represents a laminate veneer sample on the resin die. Monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) (A total of 30 zirconia laminate veneers, n = 10 in each thickness) were sintered in the sintering furnace according to the manufacturer's instructions (6 hours 42 minutes, 1530°C) and manually polished after sintering (Luster Zirconia Adjusting and polishing kit, Meisinger, Germany). Lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV) (A total of 30 lithium disilicate laminate veneers, n = 10 in each thickness) are submitted to the specific crystallization cycle in a porcelain oven (Programat, Ivoclar Vivadent, Shaan, Liechtenstein) following the manufacturer’s instructions and then polished with rubber diamond points (ST102 HP, R1020HP, R1040HP. Edenta AG). The thicknesses of the veneers were controlled with a digital caliper (Digimatic Caliper IP67, Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan). 2.2. Cementation protocols The intaglio surface of the monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) underwent air abrasion using 110 µm diameter silica-modified aluminum oxide particles (Rocatec Plus, 3M ESPE) at a pressure of 0.2 MPa for 10 seconds. Subsequently, the surface was treated with a primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus; Kuraray Noritake Dental) containing 3-trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate (3-TMSPMA) and 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP). LDLV were etched with etchant gel (K-etchant gel, Kuraray Noritake Dental) for 20 seconds, rinsed, and dried. Subsequently, the surfaces of the laminate veneers were treated with the same agent (Ceramic Primer Plus, Kuraray Noritake Dental). A resin cement (Panavia V5 Clear, Kuraray Noritake Dental) was applied to each veneer, placed on its corresponding resin die, and seated with finger pressure for one minute. Then the excess cement was removed and restoration was light cured for 20 seconds from palatal and labial surfaces. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C. 2.3. Measurement of vertical marginal discrepancy The vertical marginal discrepancy was examined using a stereomicroscope (Olympus model SZ61) at ×40 magnification. The measurements were conducted by a researcher, whereby the discrepancy between the resin dye and the laminate veneer restorations at four points (mesial, distal, cervical, palatal) at the finish line was examined. Three repetitive measurements were taken, and the mean value was recorded for this point value. 2.4. Load-to-failure test and failure mode A load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA, USA). The load was applied perpendicular to the lingual surface of the resin die, positioned 1 mm away from the incisal edge of the laminate veneer (LV) restoration, at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. To ensure consistent test conditions, a mounting jig and custom-made plunger were employed. The load applied was recorded at the point of failure. (Fig. 2 ) The failure modes were then evaluated macroscopically on the fractured surfaces. The failure modes were: cohesive failure (laminate fracture), adhesive failure (debonding of laminate), mixed failure (adhesive and cohesive failure), and root fracture. 2.5. Statistical analysis The minimum required sample size was determined by analysing previous research data using the Minitab Program (Minitab 22, Minitab LLC) [ 13 ]. To assess the differences in obtained data across the four study groups, we set a significance level (alpha-type error) of 0.05 and a statistical power (beta power) of 0.80. Based on these criteria, a minimum sample size of 10 samples per group was calculated. The vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Standard Concurrent User V 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, ABD) statistical package program. The conformity of numerical data to a normal distribution was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, while the homogeneity of variances was evaluated using the Levene test. Comparisons between groups were conducted using a Two-Way Analysis of Variance. Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for all pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Measurement of vertical marginal discrepancy Table 1 displays the outcomes of the two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test carried out on data regarding mesial, distal, cervical, palatal, and mean vertical marginal intervals. The results of the two-way ANOVA revealed significance in all regions except for the distal. Notably, the vertical marginal discrepancy of LDLV samples was significantly greater than that of MZLV samples across all thickness types, with particularly noteworthy differences observed in the cervical, palatal, and mean data. Table 1 Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test results of vertical marginal discrepancy. mesial distal cervical palatinal mean material Test Statistics †† material Test Statistics †† material Test Statistics †† material Test Statistics †† material Test Statistics †† MCZ LiSi f p MCZ LiSi f p MCZ LiSi f p MCZ LiSi f p MCZ LiSi f p Thickness 1 mm 34,0 ± 9,85 51,10 ± 25,43 4,65 0,036 25,40 ± 5,31 A 52,60 ± 26,27 B 9,592 0,003 17,70 ± 6,16 xA 48,90 ± 10,58 xB 25,243 < 0,001 34,70 ± 10,86 A 78,80 ± 32,23 xB 22,123 < 0,001 27,95 ± 3,77 A 57,85 ± 13,19 xB 49,658 < 0,001 0,7mm 29,50 ± 7,23 A 67,20 ± 23,43 B 22,601 < 0,001 43,3 ± 23,32 60,60 ± 25,43 3,880 0,054 23,50 ± 9,94 xA 80,10 ± 14,08 yB 83,075 < 0,001 30,80 ± 10,05 A 80,20 ± 22,23 xB 27,761 < 0,001 31,77 ± 7,09 A 72,02 ± 8,18 yB 89,987 < 0,001 0,5mm 50,0 ± 20,61 31,70 ± 10,76 5,325 0,025 33,30 ± 14,68 40,30 ± 13,74 0,635 0,429 44,50 ± 19,66 yA 57,90 ± 17,97 xB 4,656 0,035 25,50 ± 9,15 A 106,80 ± 28,30 yB 75,189 < 0,001 38,32 ± 8,90 A 63,75 ± 12,45 xyB 35,906 < 0,001 Test Statistics † F 0,161 2,949 2,087 2,711 10,311 13,375 0,485 5,663 3,058 5,633 p 0,852 0,061 0,134 0,075 < 0,001 < 0,001 0,618 0,006 0,055 0,006 Thickness Effect : F = 0,984 p = 0,381 Material Effect : F = 28,324 p < 0,000 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 2,126 p = 0,129 Thickness Effect : F = 2,627 p = 0,276 Material Effect : F = 8,666 p = 0,099 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 1,323 p = 0,275 Thickness Effect : F = 0,938 p = 0,516 Material Effect : F = 7,242 p = 0,115 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 12,224 p < 0,001 Thickness Effect : F = 0,335 p = 0,749 Material Effect : F = 25,153 p = 0,038 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 4,606 p = 0,014 Thickness Effect : F = 1,706 p = 0,370 Material Effect : F = 52,660 p = 0,018 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 3,212 p = 0,048 1. † : Intragroup comparison between thicknesses, Superscripts x and y indicate differences in thickness, ‡ : comparison between materials, Superscripts A and B indicate differences in material measurements. Groups with the same superscripts are statistically similar 3.2. Load-to-failure test and failure mode results Based on the results of the two-way ANOVA, a statistically significant difference was found in load-to-fracture values between MZLV and LDLV manufactured in various thicknesses (p < 0.001). (Table 2 ) Table 2 Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test results of load-to-failure test thickness Test statistics † 1 mm 0,7 mm 0,5 mm \(\stackrel{-}{x}\pm ss\) \(\stackrel{-}{x}\pm ss\) \(\stackrel{-}{x}\pm ss\) F p Material MDLV 289,10 ± 28,70 A 261,79 ± 42,21 A 271,13 ± 38,18 A 0,947 0,394 LDLV 339,89 ± 36,23 xB 336,22 ± 31,27 xB 228,39 ± 76,54 yB 19,708 < 0,001 Test Statistics ‡ F 6,336 13,607 4,487 P 0,015 0,001 0,039 Thickness effect : F = 1,190 p = 0,457 Material Effect : F = 0,591 p = 0,532 Thickness x Material Effect : F = 9,430 p < 0,001 \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) : mean, ss : Standart deviations, † : Intragroup comparison between thicknesses, Superscripts x and y indicate differences in thickness, ‡ :comparison between materials, Superscripts A and B indicate differences in material measurements. Groups with the same superscripts are statistically similar . According to the Bonferroni test results, the load-to-fracture values for 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1.0 mm thicknesses are statistically similar within the MZLV group. In the LDLV group, the load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses are statistically similar. In contrast, the value for 0.5 mm thicknesses is statistically lower than those for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm (p < 0.001). In the MZLV group, the load-to-fracture value is statistically lower than in the LDLV group for the 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thickness groups; however, it is higher in the 0.5 mm group (p = 0.039). The results of the failure modes are presented in Table 3 . No cohesive fractures were detected in the MZLV samples. Adhesive failure was more prevalent in MZLV samples, occurring in 100% of the 1mm thickness samples, 80% of the 0.7mm thickness samples, and 70% of the 0.5mm thickness samples. In LDLV samples, the type of failure was influenced by the material thickness. Cohesive fractures were more prevalent in 0.5 mm LDLV samples, whereas adhesive failure was observed in 1mm LDLV samples. Table 3 Failure mode analysis results (Number of samples - percentage ratio) Cohesive (laminate fracture) adhesive failure (debonding of laminate) mixed (adhesive and cohesive failure) root fracture MZLV 1mm 10–100% - MZLV 0,7mm 8–80% 2–20% - MZLV 0,5mm 7–70% 3–30% - LDLV 1mm 10–100% - LDLV 0,7mm 2–20% 7–70% 1–10% - LDLV 0,5mm 5–50% 4–40% 1–10% - 4. Discussion Zirconia and lithium disilicate materials have gained increasing popularity for laminate veneer restorations due to their superior mechanical properties and ease of fabrication using CAD-CAM systems. The null hypothesis of this study posited that there would be no statistically significant differences in VMD and load-to-fracture between CAD-CAM MZLVs and LDLVs manufactured at different thicknesses. However, the study findings reveal a notable distinction in load-to-failure test outcomes between materials, with thickness exerting an influence on this parameter. Regarding VMD, although thickness appears to not affect marginal adaptation, the choice of material significantly influences this aspect. Consequently, the null hypothesis is only partially accepted. The choice of the maxillary right central incisor was deliberate, as central incisors are among the most prominent teeth in the mouth, often raising significant aesthetic concerns addressed by clinicians [ 5 , 14 ]. The restoration preparations followed the guidelines provided by manufacturers for veneers as 1.5 mm incisal reduction [ 13 ]. The study by Arora et al. [ 15 ] and Vaidya et al. [ 16 ] concluded based on the result of their studies that the butt joint is the most effective preparation for ceramic veneers if incisal coverage is desired. Consequently, in the present study, a palatal butt joint and labial chamfer finish lines were employed at specified depths. Replica-prepared central incisor teeth were obtained using a 3D printer to ensure standardization, mirroring the methodology employed in the studies conducted by Jurado et al. [ 5 ] The adhesive resin is shielded against repeated exposure to oral fluids through a tight fit between the restorative margins and the tooth structure. This reduction minimizes the occurrence of progressive chemical, mechanical, and physical disintegration, which are known to lead to issues such as recurrent deterioration, microleakage, and the formation of stress concentrations [ 17 , 18 ]. Ensuring a sufficient marginal fit in laminate veneers holds significant importance [ 19 ]. Baig et al. [ 20 ], in their systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers, included research findings suggesting that zirconia laminate veneers offer improved marginal fit compared to lithium disilicate veneers. The observed effect may be attributed to inherent disparities in the production methods. In the present study, both CAD-CAM materials were fabricated using a 5-axis milling machine, thus eliminating potential discrepancies arising from variations in production methods. In line with the outcomes reported in the studies referenced by Baig et al. [ 20 ], the VMD was significantly reduced in MZLVs compared to LDLVs in the present study. Hasan et al. [ 21 ], in their study investigating the marginal chipping of machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations of various thicknesses (0.3 and 0.5 mm), observed that zirconia veneer restorations exhibited less chipping, resulting in a reduced VMD in comparison to lithium disilicate veneer restorations. Our study yielded similar findings. The literature describes a broad spectrum of marginal opening values, influenced by factors such as the type of restoration and its location [ 22 ]. More precisely, the maximum marginal discrepancy for CAD-CAM restorations has been reported to range between 40 and 90 µm in the literature [ 23 – 26 ]. As indicated by the results of the present study, although the average VMD value is greater in LDLVs compared to MZLVs, it remains within clinically acceptable limits for both materials. To assess the load to failure of laminate veneers in vitro, various loading angles of 90° [ 14 , 27 , 28 ] and 135° [ 12 ] have been suggested. Similar to the study of Saker and Özcan [ 13 ], the veneers were positioned at a 90-degree angle to the long axis of the tooth structure to specifically evaluate the horizontal component of the load exerted on the palatal surface of maxillary incisors by mandibular incisors. Lawson et al. [ 29 ] found that the material type significantly influenced crown fracture load in their study, which compared the fracture load of lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns. The lower failure load of LDLV was anticipated due to their lower flexural strength compared to MZLV. Additionally, Yan et al. [ 30 ] reported that despite 5Y-Z material exhibiting a higher biaxial flexural strength than lithium disilicate, the fracture load of lithium disilicate bonded to a resin tooth die (18.6 GPa) exceeded that of 5Y-Z. According to the load-to-failure test results, MZLV showed lower values than LDLV at thicknesses of 0.7 and 1.0 mm, while demonstrating higher values at a thickness of 0.5 mm. While there was no significant difference in load-to-failure values between different thicknesses of MZLVs, LDLVs with a thickness of 0.5 mm exhibited significantly lower results than those with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm. When comparing the materials, a notable difference in thickness is evident. Although LDLVs with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm demonstrated higher load-to-failure values, LDLVs with a thickness of 0.5 mm exhibited a significantly smaller difference compared to MDLVs with the same thickness. This variance may be attributed to the increased occurrence of adhesive failure in MDLVs with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm. Previous studies [ 31 , 32 ] have consistently demonstrated a decrease in load-to-failure values as the thickness of LDLVs decreases. The findings of the present study align closely with these established trends in the literature. The failure mode was impacted by both the type of material and, as expected, the thickness of the material. According to the failure mode analysis in the present study, debonding is identified as the predominant cause of failure for zirconia restorations across all thicknesses, and for lithium disilicate laminate veneers at thicknesses of 0.7 and 1 mm. Conversely, laminate fractures become more prevalent in LDLV at a thickness of 0.5 mm. A palatal butt-joint finish line was utilized in the present study and no instances of root fracture were observed in any of the materials or thicknesses examined. A meta-analysis of in vitro studies conducted by Da Costa et al. [ 33 ] concluded that while there was no statistical difference in ceramic fractures between both preparation types, the butt joint incisal preparation potentially offers greater advantages compared to the palatal chamfer in terms of ceramic fracture incidence and tooth fracture occurrence. The lack of root fracture can be attributed to the findings documented by Da Costa et al. [ 33 ]. The authors acknowledge the limitations of correlations between in vitro simulations of intraoral function. Specifically, the simulations conducted in this study did not incorporate thermal or mechanical load cycling. Nevertheless, the data obtained on failure mode and marginal adaptation provide valuable insights into the biomechanical properties of these dental materials. Further, in vivo studies are warranted to ascertain the longevity of zirconia veneers in the oral environment and to investigate their modes of failure. 5. Conclusions The success of laminate veneer restorations is influenced by both the selection of materials and the thickness of the restoration. Across all thicknesses, the vertical marginal fit of MZLV is superior to that of LDLV. Additionally, LDLV demonstrate lower load-to-failure values compared to MZLV in samples with a thickness of only 0.5 mm, while the load-to-failure value is higher in LDLV than in MZLV for thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm. Furthermore, lamina fracture emerges as the most common failure mode in LDLV. Restoration fracture represents the catastrophic failure of laminate veneer restorations, necessitating restoration reproduction. While debonding is the most frequent failure in MZLV restorations, it should be noted that this failure does not lead to catastrophic consequences. Thus, addressing this failure is clinically more straightforward and cost-effective. Considering all these factors, including clinical parameters, MZLV restorations may be considered a viable alternative to LDLV restorations when opting for a thin laminate veneer restoration of 0.5 mm. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Consent for publication (Kindly add not applicable): Not applicable Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflict of Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Funding: This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri/Türkiye, grant no 2020- SA.DH-BP/11. Authors' contributions: This study is signed by two authors. All of them contributed to the study’s conception and design. Pınar Yıldız: Project administration, study design, drafting the manuscript conceiving the ideas, data analysis, and Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Damla Güneş Ünlü: Methodology, investigation, data curation, data collection, supervision, conceptualization, Hasan Murat Aydoğdu: Methodology, study design formal analysis, data curation, conceptualization. Acknowledgments The authors thank Prof Dr Ferhan Elmalı for statistical consultancy. This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri/Türkiye, grant no 2020- SA.DH-BP/11. References Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(2):291–300. Dickens N, Haider H, Lien W, Simecek J, Stahl J. Longitudinal analysis of CAD/CAM restoration incorporation rates into navy dentistry. MilMed. 2019;184(5–6):365–72. Hasanzade M, Aminikhah M, Afrashtehfar KI, Alikhasi M. Marginaland internal adaptation of single crowns and fixed dental prostheses by using digital and conventional workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(3):360–8. Hasanzade M, Shirani M, Afrashtehfar KI, Naseri P, Alikhasi M. Invivo and in vitro comparison of internal and marginal fit of digital and conventional impressions for full-coverage fixed restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19(3):236–54. Jurado CA, Sadid-Zadeh R, Watanabe H, Robbins CE, Afrashtehfar KI, Fischer NG, Lee DJ. (2024). Effect of incisal preparation design on the fracture strength of monolithic zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate laminate veneers. J Prosthodont, 2024;33(3), 281–287. Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM ceramic restorative materials for natural teeth. J Dent Res. 2018;97(10):1082–91. Marchesi G, Camurri Piloni A, Nicolin V, Turco G, Di Lenarda R. Chairside CAD/CAM materials: current trends of clinical uses. Biology. 2021;10(11):1170. Baroudi K, Ibraheem SN. Assessment of chair-side computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing restorations: a review of the literature. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(4):96–104. Martins FV, Vasques WF, Fonseca EM. How the Variations of the Thickness in Ceramic Restorations of Lithium Disilicate and the Use of Different Photopolymerizers Influence the Degree of Conversion of the Resin Cements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):395–403. Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F. Lithium Disilicate Restorations Fatigue Testing Parameters: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(2):116–26. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2012;25(1):79–85. Alghazzawi TF, Lemons J, Liu PR, Essig ME, Janowski GM. The failure load of CAD/CAM generated zirconia and glass-ceramic laminate veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(6):386–93. Saker S, Özcan M. Marginal discrepancy and load to fracture of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers: the effect of preparation design and sintering protocol. Dent Mater J. 2021;40(2):331–8. Machado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dent Press JOrthod. 2014;19(4):136–57. Arora A, Upadhyaya V, Arora S, Jain P, Yadav A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs and loading conditions: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(4):325–31. Vaidya N, Rodrigues S, Hegde P, Shetty T, Pai U, Saldanha S. A comparative evaluation of the effect of different incisal preparations on the fracture resistance and fracture pattern of mandibular anterior porcelain laminate veneers using two different materials—an in vitro study. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2019;13(4):214–9. Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent. 2012;40(3):202–9. Stappert CFJ, Ozden U, Att W, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal accuracy of press-ceramic veneers influenced by preparation design and fatigue. Am J Dent. 2007;20(6):380–4. Thaj B, Joseph A, Ramanarayanan V, Singh P, Ravi AB, Krishnan V. Fracture Resistance of Two Preparation Designs on Anterior Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Dent. 2022;13(6):666–76. Baig MR, Qasim SSB, Baskaradoss JK. Marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(1):13–24. Hasan NH, Malallah AD, Qasim MH. Marginal chipping factor in machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations. Int J Dent Mater. 2024;6(1):1–5. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, von Steyern V, Fukushima P. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):526–30. Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(11):866–76. Baig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(4):216–27. Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Spiekermann H, Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent. 2001;26(4):367–74. Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gungor M, Gokce B, Artunc C. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):586–92. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AHL, Phillips K, et al. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):171–80. Schmidt KK, Chiayabutr Y, Phillips KM, et al. Influence of preparation design and existing condition of tooth structure on load to failure of ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(6):374–82. Lawson NC, Jurado CA, Huang CT, Morris GP, Burgess JO, Liu PR, Givan DA. Effect of surface treatment and cement on fracture load of traditional zirconia (3Y), translucent zirconia (5Y), and lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(6):659–65. Yan J, Kaizer MR, Zhang Y. Load-bearing capacity of lithium disilicate and ultra-translucent zirconias. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;88:170–5. André M, Kou W, Sjögren G, Sundh A. Effects of pretreatments and hydrothermal aging on biaxial flexural strength of lithium di-silicate and Mg-PSZ ceramics. J Dent. 2016;55:25–32. Malallah AD, Hasan NH. Thickness and yttria percentage influences the fracture resistance of laminate veneer zirconia restorations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(6):1413–20. da Costa DC, Coutinho M, de Sousa AS, Ennes JP. A meta-analysis of the most indicated preparation design for porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(3):215–20. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 08 Aug, 2024 Read the published version in BMC Oral Health → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 03 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 01 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2024 Reviews received at journal 02 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 May, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 24 May, 2024 Editor invited by journal 21 May, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 13 May, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 13 May, 2024 First submitted to journal 29 Apr, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4344884","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":304919863,"identity":"b206cf23-f473-4b7c-8481-8a75bac76d6d","order_by":0,"name":"Pınar YILDIZ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"DDS, Nimet Bayraktar Oral and Dental Health Center","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pınar","middleName":"","lastName":"YILDIZ","suffix":""},{"id":304919865,"identity":"e8147af5-4c8d-4c9f-a604-28ea322dc847","order_by":1,"name":"Damla Güneş Ünlü","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"DDS, Nuh Naci Yazgan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Damla","middleName":"Güneş","lastName":"Ünlü","suffix":""},{"id":304919868,"identity":"dc2a394f-6f0f-4b51-b294-aa0b2f9f8a64","order_by":2,"name":"Hasan Murat Aydoğdu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hasan","middleName":"Murat","lastName":"Aydoğdu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-29 19:39:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04685-w","type":"published","date":"2024-08-08T15:58:20+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":56911689,"identity":"6a3cdc17-09d8-435d-a032-1e4c58c8d77f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-22 05:19:52","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151687,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA laminate veneer sample on the resin die.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4344884/v1/e9c42f5882d549e6e9fc9f11.jpg"},{"id":56911688,"identity":"27e69eee-ca04-4bd5-82b4-7989d5e19d8e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-22 05:19:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23594,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRepresentative diagram of load-to-failure test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4344884/v1/102b65a1ee0b54957d061270.jpg"},{"id":62298655,"identity":"065e07f9-8e14-48e0-bb79-9310ef9802e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-12 16:15:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":859895,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4344884/v1/ea63c12d-050b-4ed7-b70c-05870ce44394.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluation of Vertical Marginal Discrepancy and Load-to-Failure of Monolithic Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers Manufactured in Different Thicknesses","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMonolithic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) ceramic restorations have become increasingly prevalent in daily practice due to their high accuracy, rapid fabrication methods, and extensive range of available materials [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Recent studies have indicated that CAD-CAM restorations exhibit superior marginal adaptation compared to conventionally fabricated indirect restorations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Also, Laminate veneers (LVs) can be manufactured utilizing CAD-CAM technology [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. A variety of materials are employed in the fabrication of monolithic CAD-CAM laminate veneers, including glass ceramics (such as lithium disilicate, leucite-reinforced feldspathic, and feldspathic porcelain), zirconia, resin composite, resilient (hybrid) ceramics, polymer-infiltrated ceramics, and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. However, there is a scarcity of research concerning recently developed materials [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLithium disilicate has emerged as a leading glass ceramic utilized in dentistry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Veneers represent one of its notable applications, offering clinicians an optimal balance between aesthetics and strength for all ceramic monolithic restorations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Caries, cracks, chipping, debonding, esthetic matches, surfaces, marginal discoloration, and marginal defects are the most common complications that may occur at lithium disilicate laminate veneers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eZirconia laminate veneers, when precision-milled using CAD-CAM technology, offer several advantages. For instance, they are applicable in clinical scenarios involving wide diastema or damaged teeth due to injury or decay, where the inner surface (lingual) remains undamaged. Glass-ceramic veneers have been noted as inappropriate in clinical scenarios where there are traumatic parafunctional occlusal forces, particularly in cases of reverse and edge-to-edge occlusal relationships. These conditions engender loading stress during functional activities, rendering glass-ceramic veneers unsuitable for such cases. Traditional porcelain veneers are delicate and pose challenges in terms of adjustment and contouring before cementation. Nevertheless, the robustness of zirconia enables easier handling, facilitating adjustments of the veneer before cementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, zirconia laminate veneers may be considered when patients desire exceptionally bright teeth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers in comparison to lithium disilicate laminate veneers. Our investigation involved an in vitro analysis focusing on vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure. The null hypotheses posited that there would be no statistically significant differences between monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) and lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV) of different thicknesses regarding vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Design and Fabrication of Laminate Veneers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree prefabricated acrylic teeth (Maxillary left central, Frasaco GMBH, Germany) were prepared using depth-gauge diamond bars to achieve depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1.0 mm, respectively. To ensure a palatal butt-joint, a 1.5 mm reduction was made from the incisal edge, and preparations were finalized with a chamfer finish line across all depths. Subsequently, the preparations were scanned using a desktop scanner (Freedom HD, DOF, Seoul, Korea), and 60 resin replicas were produced using a 3D printer (NextDent 5100, 3D Systems, NextDent B.V., Soesterberg, The Netherlands).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA maxillary left central laminate veneer restoration was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software. The cement thickness was set at 40 \u0026micro;m, and the restoration thicknesses were adjusted to 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, with the restoration extending 1 mm above the cervical edge. Subsequently, laminate veneers were milled from pre-sintered monolithic zirconia (KATANA Zirconia STML Noritake Dental Supply Co., Ltd., Miyoshi, Japan) and lithium disilicate blocks (E-MAX Cad, Ivoclar Vivadent, Shaan, Liechtenstein) using a 5-axis milling machine (Ceramill Motion 2, Amann Girrbach, Austria). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e represents a laminate veneer sample on the resin die.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) (A total of 30 zirconia laminate veneers, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10 in each thickness) were sintered in the sintering furnace according to the manufacturer's instructions (6 hours 42 minutes, 1530\u0026deg;C) and manually polished after sintering (Luster Zirconia Adjusting and polishing kit, Meisinger, Germany).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV) (A total of 30 lithium disilicate laminate veneers, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10 in each thickness) are submitted to the specific crystallization cycle in a porcelain oven (Programat, Ivoclar Vivadent, Shaan, Liechtenstein) following the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions and then polished with rubber diamond points (ST102 HP, R1020HP, R1040HP. Edenta AG). The thicknesses of the veneers were controlled with a digital caliper (Digimatic Caliper IP67, Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Cementation protocols\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intaglio surface of the monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) underwent air abrasion using 110 \u0026micro;m diameter silica-modified aluminum oxide particles (Rocatec Plus, 3M ESPE) at a pressure of 0.2 MPa for 10 seconds. Subsequently, the surface was treated with a primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus; Kuraray Noritake Dental) containing 3-trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate (3-TMSPMA) and 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV were etched with etchant gel (K-etchant gel, Kuraray Noritake Dental) for 20 seconds, rinsed, and dried. Subsequently, the surfaces of the laminate veneers were treated with the same agent (Ceramic Primer Plus, Kuraray Noritake Dental). A resin cement (Panavia V5 Clear, Kuraray Noritake Dental) was applied to each veneer, placed on its corresponding resin die, and seated with finger pressure for one minute. Then the excess cement was removed and restoration was light cured for 20 seconds from palatal and labial surfaces. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37\u0026deg;C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Measurement of vertical marginal discrepancy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vertical marginal discrepancy was examined using a stereomicroscope (Olympus model SZ61) at \u0026times;40 magnification. The measurements were conducted by a researcher, whereby the discrepancy between the resin dye and the laminate veneer restorations at four points (mesial, distal, cervical, palatal) at the finish line was examined. Three repetitive measurements were taken, and the mean value was recorded for this point value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Load-to-failure test and failure mode\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA, USA). The load was applied perpendicular to the lingual surface of the resin die, positioned 1 mm away from the incisal edge of the laminate veneer (LV) restoration, at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. To ensure consistent test conditions, a mounting jig and custom-made plunger were employed. The load applied was recorded at the point of failure. (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe failure modes were then evaluated macroscopically on the fractured surfaces. The failure modes were: cohesive failure (laminate fracture), adhesive failure (debonding of laminate), mixed failure (adhesive and cohesive failure), and root fracture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe minimum required sample size was determined by analysing previous research data using the Minitab Program (Minitab 22, Minitab LLC) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. To assess the differences in obtained data across the four study groups, we set a significance level (alpha-type error) of 0.05 and a statistical power (beta power) of 0.80. Based on these criteria, a minimum sample size of 10 samples per group was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vertical marginal discrepancy and load-to-failure data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Standard Concurrent User V 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, ABD) statistical package program. The conformity of numerical data to a normal distribution was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, while the homogeneity of variances was evaluated using the Levene test. Comparisons between groups were conducted using a Two-Way Analysis of Variance. Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for all pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was defined as p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Measurement of vertical marginal discrepancy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e displays the outcomes of the two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test carried out on data regarding mesial, distal, cervical, palatal, and mean vertical marginal intervals. The results of the two-way ANOVA revealed significance in all regions except for the distal. Notably, the vertical marginal discrepancy of LDLV samples was significantly greater than that of MZLV samples across all thickness types, with particularly noteworthy differences observed in the cervical, palatal, and mean data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test results of vertical marginal discrepancy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"21\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c15\" colnum=\"15\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c16\" colnum=\"16\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c17\" colnum=\"17\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c18\" colnum=\"18\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c19\" colnum=\"19\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c20\" colnum=\"20\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c21\" colnum=\"21\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emesial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edistal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecervical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epalatinal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ematerial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest Statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ematerial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest Statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ematerial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest Statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c15\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ematerial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest Statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ematerial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest Statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiSi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiSi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiSi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiSi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiSi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"21\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34,0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9,85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51,10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25,43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,036\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5,31\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52,60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26,27\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9,592\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,003\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6,16\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48,90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10,58\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34,70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10,86\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78,80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;32,23\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22,123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27,95\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3,77\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57,85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13,19\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49,658\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,7mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29,50\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7,23\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67,20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23,43\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22,601\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43,3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23,32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60,60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25,43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,880\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,054\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23,50\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9,94\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80,10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14,08\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eyB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83,075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30,80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10,05\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80,20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22,23\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27,761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31,77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7,09\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72,02\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8,18\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eyB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89,987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,5mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50,0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20,61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31,70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10,76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,325\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,025\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33,30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14,68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40,30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13,74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,635\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,429\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44,50\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19,66\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eyA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57,90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;17,97\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,656\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,035\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,50\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9,15\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e106,80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28,30\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eyB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75,189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38,32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8,90\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63,75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12,45\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exyB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35,906\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"21\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTest Statistics\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026dagger;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,161\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,949\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,711\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,311\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,375\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c12\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,485\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,663\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,633\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c20\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,134\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,618\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,006\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,006\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,984 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,381 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;28,324 \u003cb\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/b\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;2,126 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,129\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;2,627 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,276 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;8,666 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,099\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;1,323 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,275\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,938 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,516 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;7,242 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,115\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;12,224 \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,335 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,749 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;25,153 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,038\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;4,606 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,014\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;1,706 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,370 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;52,660 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,018\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;3,212 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,048\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"21\"\u003e1. \u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e: Intragroup comparison between thicknesses, Superscripts x and y indicate differences in thickness, \u003csup\u003e\u0026Dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e: comparison between materials, Superscripts A and B indicate differences in material measurements. Groups with the same superscripts are statistically similar\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Load-to-failure test and failure mode results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the results of the two-way ANOVA, a statistically significant difference was found in load-to-fracture values between MZLV and LDLV manufactured in various thicknesses (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test results of load-to-failure test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ethickness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest statistics\u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 \u003cem\u003emm\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,7 \u003cem\u003emm\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,5 \u003cem\u003emm\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\stackrel{-}{x}\\pm ss\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\stackrel{-}{x}\\pm ss\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\stackrel{-}{x}\\pm ss\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterial\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMDLV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e289,10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28,70\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e261,79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42,21\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e271,13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;38,18\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,947\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,394\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e339,89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;36,23\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e336,22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31,27\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003exB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e228,39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;76,54\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eyB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19,708\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTest Statistics\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026Dagger;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6,336\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,607\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,487\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,015\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,039\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;1,190 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,457 \u003cb\u003eMaterial Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,591 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0,532\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThickness x Material Effect\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;9,430 \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e0,001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\stackrel{-}{x}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e: mean, \u003cem\u003ess\u003c/em\u003e: Standart deviations, \u003csup\u003e\u0026dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e: Intragroup comparison between thicknesses, Superscripts x and y indicate differences in thickness, \u003csup\u003e\u0026Dagger;\u003c/sup\u003e:comparison between materials, Superscripts A and B indicate differences in material measurements. Groups with the same superscripts are statistically similar\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the Bonferroni test results, the load-to-fracture values for 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1.0 mm thicknesses are statistically similar within the MZLV group. In the LDLV group, the load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses are statistically similar. In contrast, the value for 0.5 mm thicknesses is statistically lower than those for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). In the MZLV group, the load-to-fracture value is statistically lower than in the LDLV group for the 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thickness groups; however, it is higher in the 0.5 mm group (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.039).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the failure modes are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. No cohesive fractures were detected in the MZLV samples. Adhesive failure was more prevalent in MZLV samples, occurring in 100% of the 1mm thickness samples, 80% of the 0.7mm thickness samples, and 70% of the 0.5mm thickness samples. In LDLV samples, the type of failure was influenced by the material thickness. Cohesive fractures were more prevalent in 0.5 mm LDLV samples, whereas adhesive failure was observed in 1mm LDLV samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure mode analysis results (Number of samples - percentage ratio)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCohesive (laminate fracture)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eadhesive failure (debonding of laminate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emixed (adhesive and cohesive failure)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eroot fracture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMZLV 1mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMZLV 0,7mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u0026ndash;80%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMZLV 0,5mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u0026ndash;70%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV 1mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV 0,7mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u0026ndash;70%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV 0,5mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;40%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;10%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eZirconia and lithium disilicate materials have gained increasing popularity for laminate veneer restorations due to their superior mechanical properties and ease of fabrication using CAD-CAM systems. The null hypothesis of this study posited that there would be no statistically significant differences in VMD and load-to-fracture between CAD-CAM MZLVs and LDLVs manufactured at different thicknesses. However, the study findings reveal a notable distinction in load-to-failure test outcomes between materials, with thickness exerting an influence on this parameter. Regarding VMD, although thickness appears to not affect marginal adaptation, the choice of material significantly influences this aspect. Consequently, the null hypothesis is only partially accepted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe choice of the maxillary right central incisor was deliberate, as central incisors are among the most prominent teeth in the mouth, often raising significant aesthetic concerns addressed by clinicians [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The restoration preparations followed the guidelines provided by manufacturers for veneers as 1.5 mm incisal reduction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The study by Arora et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and Vaidya et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] concluded based on the result of their studies that the butt joint is the most effective preparation for ceramic veneers if incisal coverage is desired. Consequently, in the present study, a palatal butt joint and labial chamfer finish lines were employed at specified depths. Replica-prepared central incisor teeth were obtained using a 3D printer to ensure standardization, mirroring the methodology employed in the studies conducted by Jurado et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe adhesive resin is shielded against repeated exposure to oral fluids through a tight fit between the restorative margins and the tooth structure. This reduction minimizes the occurrence of progressive chemical, mechanical, and physical disintegration, which are known to lead to issues such as recurrent deterioration, microleakage, and the formation of stress concentrations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Ensuring a sufficient marginal fit in laminate veneers holds significant importance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaig et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], in their systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers, included research findings suggesting that zirconia laminate veneers offer improved marginal fit compared to lithium disilicate veneers. The observed effect may be attributed to inherent disparities in the production methods. In the present study, both CAD-CAM materials were fabricated using a 5-axis milling machine, thus eliminating potential discrepancies arising from variations in production methods. In line with the outcomes reported in the studies referenced by Baig et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], the VMD was significantly reduced in MZLVs compared to LDLVs in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHasan et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], in their study investigating the marginal chipping of machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations of various thicknesses (0.3 and 0.5 mm), observed that zirconia veneer restorations exhibited less chipping, resulting in a reduced VMD in comparison to lithium disilicate veneer restorations. Our study yielded similar findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature describes a broad spectrum of marginal opening values, influenced by factors such as the type of restoration and its location [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. More precisely, the maximum marginal discrepancy for CAD-CAM restorations has been reported to range between 40 and 90 \u0026micro;m in the literature [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24 CR25\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. As indicated by the results of the present study, although the average VMD value is greater in LDLVs compared to MZLVs, it remains within clinically acceptable limits for both materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the load to failure of laminate veneers in vitro, various loading angles of 90\u0026deg; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] and 135\u0026deg; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] have been suggested. Similar to the study of Saker and \u0026Ouml;zcan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], the veneers were positioned at a 90-degree angle to the long axis of the tooth structure to specifically evaluate the horizontal component of the load exerted on the palatal surface of maxillary incisors by mandibular incisors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLawson et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] found that the material type significantly influenced crown fracture load in their study, which compared the fracture load of lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns. The lower failure load of LDLV was anticipated due to their lower flexural strength compared to MZLV. Additionally, Yan et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] reported that despite 5Y-Z material exhibiting a higher biaxial flexural strength than lithium disilicate, the fracture load of lithium disilicate bonded to a resin tooth die (18.6 GPa) exceeded that of 5Y-Z.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the load-to-failure test results, MZLV showed lower values than LDLV at thicknesses of 0.7 and 1.0 mm, while demonstrating higher values at a thickness of 0.5 mm. While there was no significant difference in load-to-failure values between different thicknesses of MZLVs, LDLVs with a thickness of 0.5 mm exhibited significantly lower results than those with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm. When comparing the materials, a notable difference in thickness is evident. Although LDLVs with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm demonstrated higher load-to-failure values, LDLVs with a thickness of 0.5 mm exhibited a significantly smaller difference compared to MDLVs with the same thickness. This variance may be attributed to the increased occurrence of adhesive failure in MDLVs with thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] have consistently demonstrated a decrease in load-to-failure values as the thickness of LDLVs decreases. The findings of the present study align closely with these established trends in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe failure mode was impacted by both the type of material and, as expected, the thickness of the material. According to the failure mode analysis in the present study, debonding is identified as the predominant cause of failure for zirconia restorations across all thicknesses, and for lithium disilicate laminate veneers at thicknesses of 0.7 and 1 mm. Conversely, laminate fractures become more prevalent in LDLV at a thickness of 0.5 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA palatal butt-joint finish line was utilized in the present study and no instances of root fracture were observed in any of the materials or thicknesses examined. A meta-analysis of in vitro studies conducted by Da Costa et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] concluded that while there was no statistical difference in ceramic fractures between both preparation types, the butt joint incisal preparation potentially offers greater advantages compared to the palatal chamfer in terms of ceramic fracture incidence and tooth fracture occurrence. The lack of root fracture can be attributed to the findings documented by Da Costa et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the limitations of correlations between in vitro simulations of intraoral function. Specifically, the simulations conducted in this study did not incorporate thermal or mechanical load cycling. Nevertheless, the data obtained on failure mode and marginal adaptation provide valuable insights into the biomechanical properties of these dental materials. Further, in vivo studies are warranted to ascertain the longevity of zirconia veneers in the oral environment and to investigate their modes of failure.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe success of laminate veneer restorations is influenced by both the selection of materials and the thickness of the restoration. Across all thicknesses, the vertical marginal fit of MZLV is superior to that of LDLV. Additionally, LDLV demonstrate lower load-to-failure values compared to MZLV in samples with a thickness of only 0.5 mm, while the load-to-failure value is higher in LDLV than in MZLV for thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm. Furthermore, lamina fracture emerges as the most common failure mode in LDLV. Restoration fracture represents the catastrophic failure of laminate veneer restorations, necessitating restoration reproduction. While debonding is the most frequent failure in MZLV restorations, it should be noted that this failure does not lead to catastrophic consequences. Thus, addressing this failure is clinically more straightforward and cost-effective. Considering all these factors, including clinical parameters, MZLV restorations may be considered a viable alternative to LDLV restorations when opting for a thin laminate veneer restoration of 0.5 mm.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication (Kindly add not applicable): Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflict of Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri/T\u0026uuml;rkiye, grant no 2020- SA.DH-BP/11.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions: This study is signed by two authors. \u0026nbsp;All of them contributed to the study\u0026rsquo;s conception and design. Pınar Yıldız: Project administration, study design, drafting the manuscript conceiving the ideas, data analysis, and Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Conceptualization, Damla G\u0026uuml;neş \u0026Uuml;nl\u0026uuml;: Methodology, investigation, data curation, data collection, supervision, conceptualization, Hasan Murat Aydoğdu: Methodology, study design formal analysis, data curation, conceptualization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank Prof Dr Ferhan Elmalı for statistical consultancy. This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri/T\u0026uuml;rkiye, grant no 2020- SA.DH-BP/11.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(2):291\u0026ndash;300.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDickens N, Haider H, Lien W, Simecek J, Stahl J. Longitudinal analysis of CAD/CAM restoration incorporation rates into navy dentistry. MilMed. 2019;184(5\u0026ndash;6):365\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasanzade M, Aminikhah M, Afrashtehfar KI, Alikhasi M. Marginaland internal adaptation of single crowns and fixed dental prostheses by using digital and conventional workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(3):360\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasanzade M, Shirani M, Afrashtehfar KI, Naseri P, Alikhasi M. Invivo and in vitro comparison of internal and marginal fit of digital and conventional impressions for full-coverage fixed restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19(3):236\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJurado CA, Sadid-Zadeh R, Watanabe H, Robbins CE, Afrashtehfar KI, Fischer NG, Lee DJ. (2024). Effect of incisal preparation design on the fracture strength of monolithic zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate laminate veneers. J Prosthodont, 2024;33(3), 281\u0026ndash;287.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM ceramic restorative materials for natural teeth. J Dent Res. 2018;97(10):1082\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarchesi G, Camurri Piloni A, Nicolin V, Turco G, Di Lenarda R. Chairside CAD/CAM materials: current trends of clinical uses. Biology. 2021;10(11):1170.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaroudi K, Ibraheem SN. Assessment of chair-side computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing restorations: a review of the literature. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(4):96\u0026ndash;104.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartins FV, Vasques WF, Fonseca EM. How the Variations of the Thickness in Ceramic Restorations of Lithium Disilicate and the Use of Different Photopolymerizers Influence the Degree of Conversion of the Resin Cements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):395\u0026ndash;403.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, Mack F. Lithium Disilicate Restorations Fatigue Testing Parameters: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(2):116\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2012;25(1):79\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlghazzawi TF, Lemons J, Liu PR, Essig ME, Janowski GM. The failure load of CAD/CAM generated zirconia and glass-ceramic laminate veneers with different preparation designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(6):386\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaker S, \u0026Ouml;zcan M. Marginal discrepancy and load to fracture of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers: the effect of preparation design and sintering protocol. Dent Mater J. 2021;40(2):331\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMachado AW. 10 commandments of smile esthetics. Dent Press JOrthod. 2014;19(4):136\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArora A, Upadhyaya V, Arora S, Jain P, Yadav A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of ceramic veneers with different preparation designs and loading conditions: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(4):325\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVaidya N, Rodrigues S, Hegde P, Shetty T, Pai U, Saldanha S. A comparative evaluation of the effect of different incisal preparations on the fracture resistance and fracture pattern of mandibular anterior porcelain laminate veneers using two different materials\u0026mdash;an in vitro study. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2019;13(4):214\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent. 2012;40(3):202\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStappert CFJ, Ozden U, Att W, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal accuracy of press-ceramic veneers influenced by preparation design and fatigue. Am J Dent. 2007;20(6):380\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThaj B, Joseph A, Ramanarayanan V, Singh P, Ravi AB, Krishnan V. Fracture Resistance of Two Preparation Designs on Anterior Laminate Veneers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Dent. 2022;13(6):666\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaig MR, Qasim SSB, Baskaradoss JK. Marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(1):13\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasan NH, Malallah AD, Qasim MH. Marginal chipping factor in machinable zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramic veneer restorations. Int J Dent Mater. 2024;6(1):1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, von Steyern V, Fukushima P. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):526\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(11):866\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(4):216\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Spiekermann H, Anusavice KJ. Marginal fit of alumina-and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent. 2001;26(4):367\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eComlekoglu M, Dundar M, Ozcan M, Gungor M, Gokce B, Artunc C. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):586\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastelnuovo J, Tjan AHL, Phillips K, et al. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):171\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmidt KK, Chiayabutr Y, Phillips KM, et al. Influence of preparation design and existing condition of tooth structure on load to failure of ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(6):374\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLawson NC, Jurado CA, Huang CT, Morris GP, Burgess JO, Liu PR, Givan DA. Effect of surface treatment and cement on fracture load of traditional zirconia (3Y), translucent zirconia (5Y), and lithium disilicate crowns. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(6):659\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan J, Kaizer MR, Zhang Y. Load-bearing capacity of lithium disilicate and ultra-translucent zirconias. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;88:170\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndr\u0026eacute; M, Kou W, Sj\u0026ouml;gren G, Sundh A. Effects of pretreatments and hydrothermal aging on biaxial flexural strength of lithium di-silicate and Mg-PSZ ceramics. J Dent. 2016;55:25\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalallah AD, Hasan NH. Thickness and yttria percentage influences the fracture resistance of laminate veneer zirconia restorations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(6):1413\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eda Costa DC, Coutinho M, de Sousa AS, Ennes JP. A meta-analysis of the most indicated preparation design for porcelain laminate veneers. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(3):215\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-oral-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ohea","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx","title":"BMC Oral Health","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, laminate veneer, vertical marginal discrepancy, load-to-failure","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjectives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers (MZLV) compared to lithium disilicate laminate veneers (LDLV).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMaterials and Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSixty resin replicas, each prepared with depths of 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, and 1 mm, were produced using a 3D printer from acrylic teeth. Laminate veneers of these thicknesses were milled from pre-sintered monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate blocks. The intaglio surface of MZLV was treated with air abrasion using 110 \u0026micro;m diameter silica-modified aluminum oxide particles and ceramic primer, while LDLV was etched and treated with the same agent before cementation with composite resin. Vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) was assessed using a stereomicroscope, and a load-to-failure test was conducted using a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated macroscopically on fractured surfaces. Data were analyzed statistically using Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLDLV samples exhibited significantly larger VMD compared to MZLV samples across all thicknesses, especially in cervical, palatal, and mean data. Within the LDLV group, load-to-fracture values for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses were similar, whereas for 0.5 mm thickness, it was significantly lower. In the MZLV group, load-to-fracture values were lower for 0.7 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses compared to LDLV, but higher for 0.5 mm thickness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterial choice and restoration thickness significantly influence laminate veneer restorations' success. MZLV generally exhibits superior vertical marginal fit compared to LDLV, with varying load-to-failure values across different thicknesses. Clinical management of debonding in MZLV is simpler compared to restoration fracture in LDLV.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClinical relevance:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsidering clinical factors, MZLV may be a preferable option to LDLV for this restoration with the thickness of 0.5 mm\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluation of Vertical Marginal Discrepancy and Load-to-Failure of Monolithic Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers Manufactured in Different Thicknesses","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-22 05:19:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4344884/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-07-03T06:54:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-01T19:20:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"283697996175174078541920240861560427980","date":"2024-06-26T18:22:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"196259989379146403419056168546708731622","date":"2024-06-26T07:07:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-06-02T12:54:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"178237600288215206802512852759036942019","date":"2024-05-24T14:32:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11290454229989186187100394648095228711","date":"2024-05-24T11:25:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-24T09:27:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-21T08:55:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-05-14T01:24:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-05-14T01:24:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Oral Health","date":"2024-04-29T19:37:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-oral-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ohea","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx","title":"BMC Oral Health","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9cdd7463-0f89-43b6-a604-746effdb44e8","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 22nd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-08-12T16:07:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4344884","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04685-w","journal":{"identity":"bmc-oral-health","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Oral Health"},"publishedOn":"2024-08-08 15:58:20","publishedOnDateReadable":"August 8th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-22 05:19:47","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12903-024-04685-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04685-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4344884","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4344884","identity":"rs-4344884","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}