首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 16 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
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   

20.
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号