Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2023
A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of tooth restoration complex restored with PEEK and lithium disilicate endocrowns.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Aher Sakshi Vilas, Fulari Deepti, Adaki Raghavendra, Huddar Dayanand, Dhole Rohit, Badadare Mokshada, Sahare Pratiksha
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro study was conducted to compare the fracture resistance of tooth restoration complex restored with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and lithium disilicate endocrowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 46 extracted premolars were collected and treated endodontically. The teeth were mounted in cylindrical molds using autopolymerizing resin and were prepared for endocrown restoration. Specimens were divided into two groups (n = 23) to receive endocrowns made with two different materials (polyetheretherketone and lithium disilicate). All the specimens were subjected to thermal cycling. The fracture resistance test was carried out using a Universal Testing Machine. Fractographic analysis was carried out using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope after load test. The values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Intergroup comparison (two groups) was performed using a t-test. Comparison of frequencies of categories of variables with groups was performed using chi-square test.
RESULTS: Fracture resistance tests showed a statistically significant difference in values between the two groups (p < 0.01). High fracture resistance values were seen with lithium disilicate endocrowns. Failure mode analysis showed that both groups exhibited mainly catastrophic failure. There were no significant differences in frequencies of the type of fracture between the groups.
CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of endocrowns fabricated with lithium disilicate material was found to be significantly higher than polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material. Hence, lithium disilicate material is superior for endocrowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 46 extracted premolars were collected and treated endodontically. The teeth were mounted in cylindrical molds using autopolymerizing resin and were prepared for endocrown restoration. Specimens were divided into two groups (n = 23) to receive endocrowns made with two different materials (polyetheretherketone and lithium disilicate). All the specimens were subjected to thermal cycling. The fracture resistance test was carried out using a Universal Testing Machine. Fractographic analysis was carried out using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope after load test. The values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Intergroup comparison (two groups) was performed using a t-test. Comparison of frequencies of categories of variables with groups was performed using chi-square test.
RESULTS: Fracture resistance tests showed a statistically significant difference in values between the two groups (p < 0.01). High fracture resistance values were seen with lithium disilicate endocrowns. Failure mode analysis showed that both groups exhibited mainly catastrophic failure. There were no significant differences in frequencies of the type of fracture between the groups.
CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of endocrowns fabricated with lithium disilicate material was found to be significantly higher than polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material. Hence, lithium disilicate material is superior for endocrowns.