Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM endocrowns made from different materials in maxillary premolar interproximal defects.
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.
Jin Fuqian, Yu Xiaoyan, Zhou Haolin, Zhou Jin, Yang Jing, Luo Yi, Chen Zhu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study aims to compare the fracture resistance of three CAD/CAM materials used in endocrown restoration of interproximal defects in maxillary premolars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 45 maxillary premolars extracted as part of orthodontic treatment were included. Following standardized root canal treatment, all teeth were prepared into Mesial-Occlusal (MO) cavity types. The samples were then randomly divided into three groups: LD [repaired with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD)], VE [treated with polymer-infiltrated ceramics (Vita Enamic)], and LU [repaired with resin-based nanoceramics (Lava Ultimate)]. Axial static loading was applied using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min until fracture, and fracture resistance and failure modes were recorded.
RESULTS: Regarding Fracture Resistance Values (FRVs), the LD group exhibited significantly higher values than the other two groups, VE (P = 0.028) and LU (P = 0.005), which showed no significant difference (P = 0.778). On the other hand, regarding failure modes, the LD group had a higher prevalence of irreparable fractures compared to the other two groups, VE (P < 0.001) and LU (P < 0.001), which showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Although lithium disilicate glass ceramics exhibited higher FRVs, they had a lower repair probability. In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics and resin-based nanoceramics contributed to tooth structure preservation.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For maxillary premolars with interproximal defects following root canal treatment, resin ceramic composites are recommended for restoration to enhance abutment teeth protection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 45 maxillary premolars extracted as part of orthodontic treatment were included. Following standardized root canal treatment, all teeth were prepared into Mesial-Occlusal (MO) cavity types. The samples were then randomly divided into three groups: LD [repaired with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD)], VE [treated with polymer-infiltrated ceramics (Vita Enamic)], and LU [repaired with resin-based nanoceramics (Lava Ultimate)]. Axial static loading was applied using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min until fracture, and fracture resistance and failure modes were recorded.
RESULTS: Regarding Fracture Resistance Values (FRVs), the LD group exhibited significantly higher values than the other two groups, VE (P = 0.028) and LU (P = 0.005), which showed no significant difference (P = 0.778). On the other hand, regarding failure modes, the LD group had a higher prevalence of irreparable fractures compared to the other two groups, VE (P < 0.001) and LU (P < 0.001), which showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Although lithium disilicate glass ceramics exhibited higher FRVs, they had a lower repair probability. In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics and resin-based nanoceramics contributed to tooth structure preservation.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For maxillary premolars with interproximal defects following root canal treatment, resin ceramic composites are recommended for restoration to enhance abutment teeth protection.