2014
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12240
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Stresses Generated within the Supporting Structures of Mandibular Second Molars Restored with Different Crown Materials: 3‐D Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Abstract: Considering the stresses generated within the supporting structures, the present work validates, by calculation, the proposed clinical use of either a full ceramic crown or a PFM crown as a restoration for mandibular second molars.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Young’s modulus of the composite resin used is 14 GPa, which is similar to that of dentine (18 GPa) and less than that of porcelain (70 GPa) or Ni–Cr alloy (204 GPa) [33]. It was also shown that a less rigid restoration could relax the applied stress by means of greater elastic deformation [34]. The less rigid composite resin shows that a greater elastic deformation would result in a lower deformation of the cusps [34].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Young’s modulus of the composite resin used is 14 GPa, which is similar to that of dentine (18 GPa) and less than that of porcelain (70 GPa) or Ni–Cr alloy (204 GPa) [33]. It was also shown that a less rigid restoration could relax the applied stress by means of greater elastic deformation [34]. The less rigid composite resin shows that a greater elastic deformation would result in a lower deformation of the cusps [34].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was also shown that a less rigid restoration could relax the applied stress by means of greater elastic deformation [34]. The less rigid composite resin shows that a greater elastic deformation would result in a lower deformation of the cusps [34]. Therefore, the risk of tooth fracture associated with large cavity preparations could be reduced by the overlaying of the vulnerable cusps with proper restorative materials [35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While others agreed that maximum clinically acceptable MG should be between 100 and 150 μm with CAD/CAM ceramic blocks fabricated. [32][33][34] The mean value of the MG of ceramic restorations was 56.1 μm in vivo studies. 35 Additionally, McLean and von Fraunhofer 31 examined the MG of 1000 fixed restorations over a 5-year period and indicated that the MG <80 μm was difficult to detect under clinical conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…According to Geng et al 22) , Weinstein et al 23) introduced FEA into implantology in 1976. Subsequently, linear FEA was also successfully applied in the fields of prosthetic [24][25][26] , restorative [27][28][29] , endodontic 30,31) , and orthodontic 32,33) dentistry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%