共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 16 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Akio Harada Keisuke Nakamura Taro Kanno Ryoichi Inagaki Ulf Örtengren Yoshimi Niwano Keiichi Sasaki Hiroshi Egusa 《European journal of oral sciences》2015,123(2):122-129
The aim of this study was to investigate whether different fabrication processes, such as the computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system or the manual build‐up technique, affect the fracture resistance of composite resin‐based crowns. Lava Ultimate (LU), Estenia C&B (EC&B), and lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic IPS e.max press (EMP) were used. Four types of molar crowns were fabricated: CAD/CAM‐generated composite resin‐based crowns (LU crowns); manually built‐up monolayer composite resin‐based crowns (EC&B‐monolayer crowns); manually built‐up layered composite resin‐based crowns (EC&B‐layered crowns); and EMP crowns. Each type of crown was cemented to dies and the fracture resistance was tested. EC&B‐layered crowns showed significantly lower fracture resistance compared with LU and EMP crowns, although there was no significant difference in flexural strength or fracture toughness between LU and EC&B materials. Micro‐computed tomography and fractographic analysis showed that decreased strength probably resulted from internal voids in the EC&B‐layered crowns introduced by the layering process. There was no significant difference in fracture resistance among LU, EC&B‐monolayer, and EMP crowns. Both types of composite resin‐based crowns showed fracture loads of >2000 N, which is higher than the molar bite force. Therefore, CAD/CAM‐generated crowns, without internal defects, may be applied to molar regions with sufficient fracture resistance. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
Cement Thickness of Inlay Restorations Made of Lithium Disilicate,Polymer‐Infiltrated Ceramic and Nano‐Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Evaluated Using 3D X‐Ray Micro‐Computed Tomography 下载免费PDF全文
Recep Uzgur DDS PhD Ertuğrul Ercan DDS PhD Zeynep Uzgur DDS PhD Hakan Çolak DDS PhD Muhammet Yalçın DDS PhD Mutlu Özcan DDS DMD PhD 《Journal of prosthodontics》2018,27(5):456-460
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Evaluation of Different Thickness,Die Color,and Resin Cement Shade for Veneers of Multilayered CAD/CAM Blocks 下载免费PDF全文
Muharrem Erhan Çömlekoğlu DDS PhD Gamze Paken DDS Firuzan Tan DDS Mine Dündar‐Çömlekoğlu DDS PhD Mutlu Özcan DDS DMD PhD Ender Akan DDS PhD Akın Aladağ DDS PhD 《Journal of prosthodontics》2016,25(7):563-569
16.
17.
Marginal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns Fabricated Using Conventional and Digital Methodology: A Three‐Dimensional Analysis 下载免费PDF全文
Nezrine Z. Mostafa BDS MSc/Dip Pros PhD FRCD N. Dorin Ruse MSc PhD MCIC FADM Nancy L. Ford PhD Ricardo M. Carvalho DDS PhD Chris C.L. Wyatt BSc DMD MSc Dip Pros 《Journal of prosthodontics》2018,27(2):145-152
18.
Effect of Veneering Methods on Zirconia Framework—Veneer Ceramic Adhesion and Fracture Resistance of Single Crowns 下载免费PDF全文
Burcu Kanat‐Ertürk DDS PhD Erhan M. Çömlekoğlu DDS PhD Mine Dündar‐Çömlekoğlu DDS PhD Mutlu Özcan DDS DMD PhD Mehmet Ali Güngör DDS PhD 《Journal of prosthodontics》2015,24(8):620-628
19.
Olaf Gabbert Brigitte Ohlmann Marc Schmitter Herbert Gilde Thomas Ruef Peter Rammelsberg 《Acta odontologica Scandinavica》2013,71(4):200-206
Objective. Evaluation of the fracture resistance of all-ceramic cantilever fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) manufactured from zirconia frameworks and veneered with a press ceramic. Material and Methods. Two mandibular premolars were prepared either with a box inlay cavity or with a full crown chamfer preparation and then duplicated. 40-three-unit cantilever FDPs replacing one premolar, with a group size of eight for each design, were manufactured. In group i-i the cantilever FDPs were retained by two inlays, in group i-c by an inlay–crown combination, and in group c-c by two crowns. The frameworks in groups i-c-R and c-c-R were reinforced by an additional shoulder on the oral side of the zirconia frameworks. All FDPs were subjected to thermal cycling (TC) and 600,000 cycles of mechanical loading (ML) with 50 N. The load to fracture was measured and fracture sites were evaluated. Results. The mean fracture values ranged from 172 N to 792 N. Fracture-strength values were significantly lower for the i-i retained FDPs than for the i-c and c-c combinations. There was no significant effect of the reinforcing shoulder in groups i-c-R and c-c-R. For FDPs with a crown on the terminal tooth, fractures were usually within the distal wall of the distal crown. Conclusions. Inlay–inlay retained cantilever FDPs cannot withstand the mastication forces expected. Fracture load values for inlay–crown and crown–crown-retained FDPs encourage further clinical investigation. The mode of fracture indicates that reinforcement of the distal crown wall might enhance fracture resistance. 相似文献