树脂基和二硅酸锂内冠的抗断裂性能。哪个更好?-体外研究的系统综述。

Biomaterial investigations in dentistry Pub Date : 2021-07-22 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510
Joshna Beji Vijayakumar, Preethi Varadan, Lakshmi Balaji, Mathan Rajan, Rajeswari Kalaiselvam, Sindhu Saeralaathan, Arathi Ganesh
{"title":"树脂基和二硅酸锂内冠的抗断裂性能。哪个更好?-体外研究的系统综述。","authors":"Joshna Beji Vijayakumar,&nbsp;Preethi Varadan,&nbsp;Lakshmi Balaji,&nbsp;Mathan Rajan,&nbsp;Rajeswari Kalaiselvam,&nbsp;Sindhu Saeralaathan,&nbsp;Arathi Ganesh","doi":"10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> The review protocol was registered in the P ROSP ERO database (CRD42020166201). A comprehensive literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using key terms. Only in-vitro studies that compared fracture resistance of LDS-based endocrowns and indirect RB endocrowns in molars were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and qualitative analysis of the included studies were performed. <b>Results:</b> Five studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the included studies was moderate. Under axial loading, RB endocrowns showed similar fracture resistance when compared with LDS endocrowns. However, they showed better fracture resistance when compared with zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) endocrowns. Furthermore, RB endocrowns showed fewer catastrophic failures than LDS-based endocrowns. <b>Conclusions:</b> RB endocrowns have similar or better fracture resistance and fewer catastrophic failures when compared to LDS-based endocrowns.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"104-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? - A systematic review of <i>in-vitro</i> studies.\",\"authors\":\"Joshna Beji Vijayakumar,&nbsp;Preethi Varadan,&nbsp;Lakshmi Balaji,&nbsp;Mathan Rajan,&nbsp;Rajeswari Kalaiselvam,&nbsp;Sindhu Saeralaathan,&nbsp;Arathi Ganesh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> The review protocol was registered in the P ROSP ERO database (CRD42020166201). A comprehensive literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using key terms. Only in-vitro studies that compared fracture resistance of LDS-based endocrowns and indirect RB endocrowns in molars were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and qualitative analysis of the included studies were performed. <b>Results:</b> Five studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the included studies was moderate. Under axial loading, RB endocrowns showed similar fracture resistance when compared with LDS endocrowns. However, they showed better fracture resistance when compared with zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) endocrowns. Furthermore, RB endocrowns showed fewer catastrophic failures than LDS-based endocrowns. <b>Conclusions:</b> RB endocrowns have similar or better fracture resistance and fewer catastrophic failures when compared to LDS-based endocrowns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"104-111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 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/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

目的:本系统综述的主要目的是比较体外研究中二硅酸锂(LDS)基内冠和树脂基(RB)内冠的抗骨折性,次要目的是比较它们的灾难性失败。材料和方法:审查方案已在P ROSP ERO数据库注册(CRD42020166201)。在PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost和Google Scholar中使用关键词进行了全面的文献检索。仅包括比较lds基内冠和间接RB内冠在磨牙中的抗骨折性的体外研究。对纳入的研究进行数据提取、偏倚风险评估和定性分析。结果:本系统综述纳入了5项研究。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中等。在轴向载荷作用下,RB牙冠与LDS牙冠具有相似的抗断裂性能。然而,与氧化锆增强硅酸锂(ZLS)内冠相比,它们具有更好的抗断裂性能。此外,RB内冠比lds内冠发生更少的灾难性失效。结论:与基于lds的内冠相比,RB内冠具有相似或更好的抗骨折性和更少的灾难性失效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? - A systematic review of <i>in-vitro</i> studies.

Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? - A systematic review of <i>in-vitro</i> studies.

Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? - A systematic review of in-vitro studies.

Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. Materials and Methods: The review protocol was registered in the P ROSP ERO database (CRD42020166201). A comprehensive literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using key terms. Only in-vitro studies that compared fracture resistance of LDS-based endocrowns and indirect RB endocrowns in molars were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and qualitative analysis of the included studies were performed. Results: Five studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the included studies was moderate. Under axial loading, RB endocrowns showed similar fracture resistance when compared with LDS endocrowns. However, they showed better fracture resistance when compared with zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) endocrowns. Furthermore, RB endocrowns showed fewer catastrophic failures than LDS-based endocrowns. Conclusions: RB endocrowns have similar or better fracture resistance and fewer catastrophic failures when compared to LDS-based endocrowns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信