4.5 Article

Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses

期刊

Clinical Oral Investigations
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 2493-2500

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1777-4

关键词

Fracture load; PEEK; Digital veneering; Veneering resin composite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to investigate the fracture load of different veneered PEEK 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) after different aging regimens. Congruently anatomically shaped 3-unit FDPs were milled using a master stl-data set and randomly divided into four groups (N = 120, n = 30 per veneering group), which were veneered using different veneering methods: (i) digital veneering with breCAM.HIPC, (ii) conventional veneering with crea.lign, (iii) conventional with crea.lign paste, and (iv) using pre-manufactured veneers visio.lign. The FDPs were then adhesively cemented on a metal abutment and fracture loads were measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) before and after aging (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 A degrees C). Two- and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Scheff, tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). This investigation showed an influence of the veneering method on the fracture load results independent of the aging level. The highest fracture load was measured for the FDPs with digital veneering (1882 +/- 152 N at baseline, 2021 +/- 184 N after thermocycling). The remaining groups showed comparable results, and no impact of thermal aging was observed. Digital and conventional veneers showed cracks in the pontic region starting from the connector area as a main failure type after loading, while the pre-manufactured veneers showed predominantly adhesive failures. The digital veneering method showed the highest fracture load resistance. Thermal aging showed no impact on the fracture load of all tested veneered PEEK 3-unit FDPs. According to this study results, reliable veneering of PEEK FDPs can be achieved with digital veneering.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据