American journal of dentistry · 2025
Preparation designs and ceramic materials for premolar veneers: Effects on marginal adaptation and failure load.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akarsu Cansu, Kanat-Ertürk Burcu, Çõmlekoğlu Erhan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of different preparation designs and ceramic materials on the marginal adaptation and failure load of laminate veneer restorations (LVRs) on premolars.
METHODS: Premolar LVRs (0.4 mm thickness) were fabricated using featheredge (F) and butt-joint (B) preparations and four ceramics; Cerec Tessera (CT), Vita Enamic (VE), IPS e.max CAD (EmC), and IPS e.max Press (EmP) (n= 80). Marginal gap (MG) was measured by silicone replica technique. After cementation on epoxy resin dies and 5,000 thermal-cycles, failure load (FL) was tested at the buccal cusp (0.5 mm/minute). Data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA, Tukey, t-test, (P< 0.05), and fracture types were classified.
RESULTS: Preparation design and ceramic material had statistically significant effects on MG and FL (P< 0.001). B design showed significantly better MG and FL values than F design (P< 0.05). VE exhibited the lowest MG for both preparations, whereas EmP showed the highest MG for B, and EmP and CT for F (P< 0.05). CT showed significantly higher FL than EmP for both preparations (P< 0.05). All failures were catastrophic.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this study provide clinical guidance for the selection of preparation design and ceramic material on premolar LVRs for smile design treatments. The results suggest that butt-joint preparation offers better mechanical strength and marginal adaptation, while CAD-CAM ceramics outperform pressed ceramics.
METHODS: Premolar LVRs (0.4 mm thickness) were fabricated using featheredge (F) and butt-joint (B) preparations and four ceramics; Cerec Tessera (CT), Vita Enamic (VE), IPS e.max CAD (EmC), and IPS e.max Press (EmP) (n= 80). Marginal gap (MG) was measured by silicone replica technique. After cementation on epoxy resin dies and 5,000 thermal-cycles, failure load (FL) was tested at the buccal cusp (0.5 mm/minute). Data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA, Tukey, t-test, (P< 0.05), and fracture types were classified.
RESULTS: Preparation design and ceramic material had statistically significant effects on MG and FL (P< 0.001). B design showed significantly better MG and FL values than F design (P< 0.05). VE exhibited the lowest MG for both preparations, whereas EmP showed the highest MG for B, and EmP and CT for F (P< 0.05). CT showed significantly higher FL than EmP for both preparations (P< 0.05). All failures were catastrophic.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this study provide clinical guidance for the selection of preparation design and ceramic material on premolar LVRs for smile design treatments. The results suggest that butt-joint preparation offers better mechanical strength and marginal adaptation, while CAD-CAM ceramics outperform pressed ceramics.