Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Braz. oral res. (Online) ; 32: e005, 2018. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-889474

ABSTRACT

Abstract Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has generally been used as a nondestructive technique to evaluate integrities of composite restorations. We investigated marginal and internal adaptations of ceramic inlay restorations with OCT and compared them to results with the silicone replica technique. Round-shaped class I cavities were prepared on 16 human maxillary first premolar teeth. Ceramic inlays were fabricated. Silicone replicas from inlays were obtained and sectioned to measure marginal and internal adaptations with a stereomicroscope (Leica Dfc 295, Bensheim, Germany). Inlays were cemented on respective teeth. Marginal and internal adaptations were then measured with the OCT system (Thorlabs, New Jersey, USA) in 200- μm intervals. Replica and OCT measurements were compared with independent samples t-tests. A paired t-test was used to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptations of each group (p < 0.05). Marginal and internal adaptations were 100.97 ± 31.36 and 113.94 ± 39.75 μm, respectively, using the replica technique and 28.97 ± 17.86 and 97.87 ± 21.83 μm, respectively, using OCT. The differences between the techniques were significant (p = 0.00 and p = 0.01, respectively). On evaluation within the groups, internal adaptation values were found to be significantly higher than the marginal adaptation values for the replica technique (p = 0.00) and OCT (p = 0.00). Therefore, the replica and OCT techniques showed different results, with higher values of marginal and internal adaptation found with the replica technique. Marginal and internal adaptation values of ceramic inlays, whether measured by replica or OCT techniques, were within clinically acceptable limits.


Subject(s)
Humans , Ceramics/chemistry , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Inlays/methods , Replica Techniques/methods , Tomography, Optical Coherence/methods , Materials Testing , Reference Standards , Reference Values , Reproducibility of Results , Resin Cements/chemistry , Surface Properties
2.
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics ; : 454-459, 2015.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-60628

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To determine whether the fracture strengths and failure types differed between metal and zirconia frameworks veneered with pressable or layering ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phantom molar tooth was prepared and duplicated in 40 cobalt-chromium abutments. Twenty metal (IPS d.SIGN 15, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and 20 zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar) frameworks were fabricated on the abutments. Each framework group was randomly divided into 2 subgroups according to the veneering material: pressable and layering ceramics (n=10). Forty molar crowns were fabricated, cemented onto the corresponding abutments and then thermocycled (5-55degrees C, 10,000 cycles). A load was applied in a universal testing machine until a fracture occurred on the crowns. In addition, failure types were examined using a stereomicroscope. Fracture load data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post-hoc tests at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The highest strength value was seen in metal-pressable (MP) group, whereas zirconia-pressable (ZP) group exhibited the lowest one. Moreover, group MP showed significantly higher fracture loads than group ZP (P=.015) and zirconia-layering (ZL) (P=.038) group. No significant difference in fracture strength was detected between groups MP and ML, and groups ZP and ZL (P>.05). Predominant fracture types were cohesive for metal groups and adhesive for zirconia groups. CONCLUSION: Fracture strength of a restoration with a metal or a zirconia framework was independent of the veneering techniques. However, the pressing technique over metal frameworks resisted significantly higher fracture loads than zirconia frameworks.


Subject(s)
Adhesives , Ceramics , Compressive Strength , Crowns , Dental Porcelain , Molar , Tooth
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL