In vitro Comparison of Fracture Toughness Among Three CAD/CAM Fixed Prosthodontic Materials

• Milad Elshah

  School of Medical Science, Libyan Academy for Postgraduate Studies, Janzour, Libya

  Author

  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3544-4923 (unauthenticated)

• Mohamed Zeglam

  Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya

  Author

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9496-5633 (unauthenticated)

• Asmaa Abdeewi

  Libyan Polmer Research Center, Tripoli, Libya. Research and Consultancy Center, Sirte University

  Author

  https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9616-2112 (unauthenticated)

Fracture toughness is a critical mechanical property influencing the clinical durability of prosthodontic materials, especially those used in high-stress posterior regions. Differences in composition, microstructure, and fabrication technologies can significantly affect resistance to crack propagation. This experimental study evaluated the fracture toughness of three prosthodontic material groups (n = 10 each). Standardized samples were prepared and tested using the Vickers indentation technique under controlled laboratory conditions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine significant differences among the groups. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test. Statistically significant differences in fracture toughness were observed among the three groups (p < 0.001). Group II demonstrated the highest mean fracture toughness (5.39 ± 0.34 MPa·m^1/2), followed by Group III (4.34 ± 0.36 MPa·m^1/2). Group I recorded the lowest mean value (2.82 ± 0.56 MPa·m^1/2). Tukey’s post-hoc analysis confirmed that all pairwise comparisons were significant (p < 0.001), indicating that each material group exhibited distinct mechanical performance profiles. The findings show that the fracture toughness of prosthodontic materials vary significantly depending on their composition and manufacturing technology. Materials in Group II outperformed the other groups, suggesting greater suitability for clinical situations where high resistance to fracture is required. Further studies incorporating additional mechanical tests and long-term clinical evaluation are recommended to validate these results under functional oral conditions.

• pdf