Zirkonya ile Güçlendirilmiş Lityum Silikat, Zirkonya ve Lityum Disilikatın Translüsensi ve Bükülme Dayanımının Karşılaştırılması

Merve Utar, Zülfikar Demi̇rtağ
{"title":"Zirkonya ile Güçlendirilmiş Lityum Silikat, Zirkonya ve Lityum Disilikatın Translüsensi ve Bükülme Dayanımının Karşılaştırılması","authors":"Merve Utar, Zülfikar Demi̇rtağ","doi":"10.61139/ijdor.1298690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Optimal mechanical and aesthetic properties are expected from all ceramic restorations in dentistry to maintain good prognosis. Zirconia restorations have had mechanical advantages and lithium disilicate ceramics have provided aesthetic advantages. This study intended to compare the four-point flexural strength and translucency of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate with solid zirconia and lithium disilicate. \nMaterial and Methods: 90 bars (1x4x18 mm) for flexural strength test (n=30) and 30 square shaped (1x10x10 mm) samples for translucency measurement (n=10) were obtained from solid zirconia (BR-BruxZir), zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS-Vita Suprinity) and lithium disilicate (EM-Emax CAD) blocks. All BR samples were sintered, VS and EM were crystallized according to the manufacturer's recommendations. These samples were grinded and polished. Subsequently, they were ultrasonically cleaned and flexural strength values (MPa) were obtained in a universal test device. Color measurements were performed with a dental spectrophotometer using black and white backgrounds to determine the translucency values. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results: BR showed the highest mean flexural strength. There was no significant difference between EM and VS (p>0.05), while BR showed significantly different flexural strength (p","PeriodicalId":147898,"journal":{"name":"HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1298690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Optimal mechanical and aesthetic properties are expected from all ceramic restorations in dentistry to maintain good prognosis. Zirconia restorations have had mechanical advantages and lithium disilicate ceramics have provided aesthetic advantages. This study intended to compare the four-point flexural strength and translucency of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate with solid zirconia and lithium disilicate. Material and Methods: 90 bars (1x4x18 mm) for flexural strength test (n=30) and 30 square shaped (1x10x10 mm) samples for translucency measurement (n=10) were obtained from solid zirconia (BR-BruxZir), zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS-Vita Suprinity) and lithium disilicate (EM-Emax CAD) blocks. All BR samples were sintered, VS and EM were crystallized according to the manufacturer's recommendations. These samples were grinded and polished. Subsequently, they were ultrasonically cleaned and flexural strength values (MPa) were obtained in a universal test device. Color measurements were performed with a dental spectrophotometer using black and white backgrounds to determine the translucency values. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results: BR showed the highest mean flexural strength. There was no significant difference between EM and VS (p>0.05), while BR showed significantly different flexural strength (p
目的:期望所有牙科陶瓷修复体具有最佳的力学和美学性能,以保持良好的预后。氧化锆修复体具有机械优势,二硅酸锂陶瓷具有美学优势。本研究旨在比较氧化锆增强硅酸锂与固体氧化锆和二硅酸锂的四点抗弯强度和透光性。材料和方法:从固体氧化锆(BR-BruxZir)、氧化锆增强硅酸锂(VS-Vita Suprinity)和二硅酸锂(EM-Emax CAD)块中获得90块(1x4x18 mm)用于抗弯强度测试(n=30)和30块方形(1x10x10 mm)用于半透明测试(n=10)。所有的BR样品都进行了烧结,根据制造商的建议进行了VS和EM结晶。这些样品经过研磨和抛光。随后,对其进行超声清洗,并在通用测试装置中获得抗弯强度值(MPa)。颜色测量使用牙科分光光度计使用黑色和白色的背景来确定半透明值。统计学分析采用单因素方差分析和Tukey HSD检验。结果:BR的平均抗弯强度最高。EM与VS无显著差异(p>0.05), BR的抗弯强度差异有显著性(p>0.05)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信