{"title":"陶瓷材料类型对嵌体保留与全覆盖固定义齿断裂载荷的影响。","authors":"Hamid Kermanshah, Fariba Motevasselian, Saeedeh Alavi Kakhaki, Mutlu Özcan","doi":"10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture (IRFPD) is a conservative prosthetic option but the mechanical durability of new high strength zirconia reinforced glass ceramic FPDs is not investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare fracture load of 3-unit ceramic FPDs. <b>Materials and methods:</b> Extracted premolars and molars (<i>N</i> = 64) were used to create three test groups (IRFPDs) and one control group (full coverage FPD) (<i>n</i> = 8). The teeth were embedded in PMMA resin with a mesiodistal distance of 6 mm. Premolars had a distal and molars had a mesial inlay preparation (width: 3 mm; height: 4 mm) in the test groups. IRFPDs were made from a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS) or a monolithic zirconia. Zirconia IRFPDs received 2 types of surface treatments: sandblasting (Zr-IRFPD) or internal coating with feldspathic porcelain (ZrC-IRFPD). Control group was made from monolithic zirconia with the same connector size and zirconia surfaces were sandblasted (Zr-FPD). All restorations were cemented using a resin luting cement. After 5000 thermo-cycles, fracture load values (N) were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey`s post hoc test (<i>p ˂</i> .05). <b>Result:</b> Fracture load (mean ± SD) of Zr-FPDs, Zr-IRFPDs and ZrC-IRFPDs were 672 ± 183, 672 ± 123 and 638 ± 59, respectively, being not statistically different (<i>p</i> > .05). VS-IRFPD exhibited statically lower values (391 ± 136). The predominant mode of failure was fracture at the connector area in all groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> The fracture load of 3-unit IRFPD was significantly affected by types of ceramics but the retainer design and surface treatment in Zr groups did not show a significant effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":"7 1","pages":"62-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses.\",\"authors\":\"Hamid Kermanshah, Fariba Motevasselian, Saeedeh Alavi Kakhaki, Mutlu Özcan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture (IRFPD) is a conservative prosthetic option but the mechanical durability of new high strength zirconia reinforced glass ceramic FPDs is not investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare fracture load of 3-unit ceramic FPDs. <b>Materials and methods:</b> Extracted premolars and molars (<i>N</i> = 64) were used to create three test groups (IRFPDs) and one control group (full coverage FPD) (<i>n</i> = 8). The teeth were embedded in PMMA resin with a mesiodistal distance of 6 mm. Premolars had a distal and molars had a mesial inlay preparation (width: 3 mm; height: 4 mm) in the test groups. IRFPDs were made from a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS) or a monolithic zirconia. Zirconia IRFPDs received 2 types of surface treatments: sandblasting (Zr-IRFPD) or internal coating with feldspathic porcelain (ZrC-IRFPD). Control group was made from monolithic zirconia with the same connector size and zirconia surfaces were sandblasted (Zr-FPD). All restorations were cemented using a resin luting cement. After 5000 thermo-cycles, fracture load values (N) were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey`s post hoc test (<i>p ˂</i> .05). <b>Result:</b> Fracture load (mean ± SD) of Zr-FPDs, Zr-IRFPDs and ZrC-IRFPDs were 672 ± 183, 672 ± 123 and 638 ± 59, respectively, being not statistically different (<i>p</i> > .05). VS-IRFPD exhibited statically lower values (391 ± 136). The predominant mode of failure was fracture at the connector area in all groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> The fracture load of 3-unit IRFPD was significantly affected by types of ceramics but the retainer design and surface treatment in Zr groups did not show a significant effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"62-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses.
Objective: Ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture (IRFPD) is a conservative prosthetic option but the mechanical durability of new high strength zirconia reinforced glass ceramic FPDs is not investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare fracture load of 3-unit ceramic FPDs. Materials and methods: Extracted premolars and molars (N = 64) were used to create three test groups (IRFPDs) and one control group (full coverage FPD) (n = 8). The teeth were embedded in PMMA resin with a mesiodistal distance of 6 mm. Premolars had a distal and molars had a mesial inlay preparation (width: 3 mm; height: 4 mm) in the test groups. IRFPDs were made from a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS) or a monolithic zirconia. Zirconia IRFPDs received 2 types of surface treatments: sandblasting (Zr-IRFPD) or internal coating with feldspathic porcelain (ZrC-IRFPD). Control group was made from monolithic zirconia with the same connector size and zirconia surfaces were sandblasted (Zr-FPD). All restorations were cemented using a resin luting cement. After 5000 thermo-cycles, fracture load values (N) were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey`s post hoc test (p ˂ .05). Result: Fracture load (mean ± SD) of Zr-FPDs, Zr-IRFPDs and ZrC-IRFPDs were 672 ± 183, 672 ± 123 and 638 ± 59, respectively, being not statistically different (p > .05). VS-IRFPD exhibited statically lower values (391 ± 136). The predominant mode of failure was fracture at the connector area in all groups. Conclusion: The fracture load of 3-unit IRFPD was significantly affected by types of ceramics but the retainer design and surface treatment in Zr groups did not show a significant effect.