Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2018
Fatigue Behavior of Different CAD/CAM Materials for Monolithic, Implant-Supported Molar Crowns.
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.
Sotto-Maior Bruno Salles, Carneiro Rafael Corrêa, Francischone Carlos Eduardo, Assis Neuza Maria Souza Picorelli, Devito Karina Lopes, Senna Plinio Mendes
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fracture resistance after the thermal and mechanical fatigue of feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and resin-modified CAD/CAM monolithic crowns cemented onto a universal post abutment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A right second mandibular molar was designed in CAD/CAM software, and 30 crowns were machined using three different materials (n = 10): feldspathic ceramic, finished only with a glaze cycle (G1); lithium disilicate, sintered and finished with a glaze cycle (G2); and resin, modified by nanoceramic and finished with rubber (G3). All crowns were cemented under a constant 50 N load, the excess cement was removed, and the crowns were light-cured for 30 seconds. After being immersed in deionized water for 7 days, the crowns were submitted to thermal cycling, which consisted of varying the temperature from 2 to 50°C for 350,000 cycles, and mechanical cycling in a fatigue simulator, where a 250 N load was applied for 1,000,000 cycles at 2 Hz. The resistance of each crown was verified in a compression-to-failure test at 1 mm/min in a universal test machine. The groups were compared using one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni post hoc test and Weibull statistics.
RESULTS: The resin-modified group was the least resistant group (1755 ± 124 N), followed by the feldspathic (2147 ± 412 N) and lithium disilicate groups (2804 ± 303 N). The Weibull statistics demonstrated that lithium disilicate is the most reliable material and has the lowest fracture probability.
CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to conclude that all of the tested CAD/CAM materials can be used as monolithic, implant-supported molar crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A right second mandibular molar was designed in CAD/CAM software, and 30 crowns were machined using three different materials (n = 10): feldspathic ceramic, finished only with a glaze cycle (G1); lithium disilicate, sintered and finished with a glaze cycle (G2); and resin, modified by nanoceramic and finished with rubber (G3). All crowns were cemented under a constant 50 N load, the excess cement was removed, and the crowns were light-cured for 30 seconds. After being immersed in deionized water for 7 days, the crowns were submitted to thermal cycling, which consisted of varying the temperature from 2 to 50°C for 350,000 cycles, and mechanical cycling in a fatigue simulator, where a 250 N load was applied for 1,000,000 cycles at 2 Hz. The resistance of each crown was verified in a compression-to-failure test at 1 mm/min in a universal test machine. The groups were compared using one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni post hoc test and Weibull statistics.
RESULTS: The resin-modified group was the least resistant group (1755 ± 124 N), followed by the feldspathic (2147 ± 412 N) and lithium disilicate groups (2804 ± 303 N). The Weibull statistics demonstrated that lithium disilicate is the most reliable material and has the lowest fracture probability.
CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to conclude that all of the tested CAD/CAM materials can be used as monolithic, implant-supported molar crowns.