Journal of prosthodontic research · 2021
Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with different endocrown designs and materials after artificial ageing.
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.
Ahmed Mohamed A A, Kern Matthias, Mourshed Bilal, Wille Sebastian, Chaar Mohamed Sad
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of three different designs and two monolithic ceramic materials on the durability and fracture resistance of endocrowns on maxillary first premolars, in comparison to post-and-core crowns.
METHODS: Fifty-six maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and shortened to a level of 2 mm from the cervical line, and randomly categorized into six endocrown groups and post-and-core crown control group (n=8); E1; endocrowns with flat occlusal table (without ferrule), E2; endocrowns with 1.5 mm circumferential ferrule, E3; endocrowns with 1.5 mm buccal ferrule preparation. Two materials were used for endocrowns: zirconia (4YSZ; Z), and lithium disilicate (L). The control group was restored with zirconia posts, and lithium disilicate crowns. All restorations were bonded using Panavia V5 and its respective primers and underwent thermo-mechanical fatigue with a 10 kg dynamic load for 1,200,000 cycles and thermocycling between 5 and 55 °C. Thereafter all survived specimens were loaded to fracture. The results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and T-Test.
RESULTS: None of the specimens showed any signs of debonding or fracture caused by the fatigue test. The PC control group showed no statistically significant difference in comparison to groups ZE1, ZE2 and LE2 (p > 0.05). However, it was significantly different from groups LE1, LE3, and ZE3 (p ≤ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Preparation designs and materials affected the fracture resistance of endocrowns. The results showed a superiority of the post-and-core crowns, zirconia/lithium disilicate endocrowns with 1.5 mm circumferential ferrule, and zirconia endocrowns with the flat occlusal table.
METHODS: Fifty-six maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and shortened to a level of 2 mm from the cervical line, and randomly categorized into six endocrown groups and post-and-core crown control group (n=8); E1; endocrowns with flat occlusal table (without ferrule), E2; endocrowns with 1.5 mm circumferential ferrule, E3; endocrowns with 1.5 mm buccal ferrule preparation. Two materials were used for endocrowns: zirconia (4YSZ; Z), and lithium disilicate (L). The control group was restored with zirconia posts, and lithium disilicate crowns. All restorations were bonded using Panavia V5 and its respective primers and underwent thermo-mechanical fatigue with a 10 kg dynamic load for 1,200,000 cycles and thermocycling between 5 and 55 °C. Thereafter all survived specimens were loaded to fracture. The results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and T-Test.
RESULTS: None of the specimens showed any signs of debonding or fracture caused by the fatigue test. The PC control group showed no statistically significant difference in comparison to groups ZE1, ZE2 and LE2 (p > 0.05). However, it was significantly different from groups LE1, LE3, and ZE3 (p ≤ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Preparation designs and materials affected the fracture resistance of endocrowns. The results showed a superiority of the post-and-core crowns, zirconia/lithium disilicate endocrowns with 1.5 mm circumferential ferrule, and zirconia endocrowns with the flat occlusal table.