Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2016
Mechanical Failure of Endocrowns Manufactured with Different Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Aktas Guliz, Yerlikaya Hatice, Akca Kivanc
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different silica-based ceramic materials on the mechanical failure behavior of endocrowns used in the restoration of endodontically treated mandibular molar teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six intact mandibular molar teeth extracted because of a loss of periodontal support received root canal treatment. The teeth were prepared with a central cavity to support the endocrowns, replacing the occlusal surface with mesial-lingual-distal walls. Data acquisition of the prepared tooth surfaces was carried out digitally with a powder-free intraoral scanner. Restoration designs were completed on manufactured restorations from three silicate ceramics: alumina-silicate (control), zirconia-reinforced (Zr-R), and polymer-infiltrated (P-I). Following adhesive cementation, endocrowns were subjected to thermal aging, and then, each specimen was obliquely loaded to record the fracture strength and define the mechanical failure. For the failure definition, the fracture type characteristics were identified, and further analytic measurements were made on the fractured tooth and ceramic structure.
RESULTS: Load-to-fracture failure did not differ significantly, and the calculated mean values were 1035.08 N, 1058.33 N, and 1025.00 N for control, Zr-R, and P-I groups, respectively; however, the stiffness of the restoration-tooth complex was significantly higher than that in both test groups. No statistically significant correlation was established in paired comparisons of the failure strength, restorative stiffness, and fractured tooth distance parameters. The failure mode for teeth restored with zirconia-reinforced glass ceramics was identified as non-restorable. The resin interface in the control and P-I groups presented similar adhesive failure behavior.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical failure of endocrown restorations does not significantly differ for silica-based ceramics modified either with zirconia or polymer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six intact mandibular molar teeth extracted because of a loss of periodontal support received root canal treatment. The teeth were prepared with a central cavity to support the endocrowns, replacing the occlusal surface with mesial-lingual-distal walls. Data acquisition of the prepared tooth surfaces was carried out digitally with a powder-free intraoral scanner. Restoration designs were completed on manufactured restorations from three silicate ceramics: alumina-silicate (control), zirconia-reinforced (Zr-R), and polymer-infiltrated (P-I). Following adhesive cementation, endocrowns were subjected to thermal aging, and then, each specimen was obliquely loaded to record the fracture strength and define the mechanical failure. For the failure definition, the fracture type characteristics were identified, and further analytic measurements were made on the fractured tooth and ceramic structure.
RESULTS: Load-to-fracture failure did not differ significantly, and the calculated mean values were 1035.08 N, 1058.33 N, and 1025.00 N for control, Zr-R, and P-I groups, respectively; however, the stiffness of the restoration-tooth complex was significantly higher than that in both test groups. No statistically significant correlation was established in paired comparisons of the failure strength, restorative stiffness, and fractured tooth distance parameters. The failure mode for teeth restored with zirconia-reinforced glass ceramics was identified as non-restorable. The resin interface in the control and P-I groups presented similar adhesive failure behavior.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical failure of endocrown restorations does not significantly differ for silica-based ceramics modified either with zirconia or polymer.