Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications

Pallis, Konstantinos; Griggs, Jason A.; Woody, Ronald D.; Guillen, Guillermo E.; Miller, Amp W.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.001

Cited by 129 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 These condition can explain about the mechanical properties of Procera All-Ceram higher than In-Ceram Alumina and empress 2. This is corroborated by the study of Pallis et al 12 who found that Procera AllCeram had higher Weibull modulus than empress 2, and Wagner and Chu who found Procera All-Ceram to have higher flexural strength than In-Ceram Alumina. 57 Weibull modulus is related to the flaw-size distribution and reported to relate to the probability of failure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…8 Not all of these materials are alike, and as such they present with different properties that may affect their indication and limitation, the laboratory procedure used for their processing and their clinical handling. 3 The benefits of the materials include a substantial improvement mechanical properties and longevity 12 and long-term survival of prosthetic cases are the important factor in rehabilitation. 8 The longevity of restoration is dependent upon many different factors including materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The clinical potential and limits of the all-ceramic fixed partial denture restorations

Laksono

2007

Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical potential and limits of the all-ceramic fixed partial denture restorations

Laksono

2007

Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, a mean marginal gap of 65 μm was reported for fixed partial dentures (FPDs) milled from Lava zirconia (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) in a semi-sintered state 17) . Fracture toughness of all-ceramic crowns is also an important property that has a direct correlation to their clinical success, and hence a keenly investigated subject in numerous in vitro studies [19][20][21] . Regarding the effect of luting cements on the fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns, it remains a controversial and widely debated issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal-internal adaptation and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM crown restorations

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia crowns luted using different luting agents. Twenty crown restorations were produced using IPS ZirCAD zirconium oxide blocks (IZC), and another 20 using Lava zirconium oxide blocks (L). Ten teeth were used as control. Luting agents used were an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Variolink II) and a self-etch adhesive (Multilink Automix). Internal and marginal adaptation was evaluated using silicone replica technique. Fracture resistance was evaluated using a compression test. Marginal discrepancy was 89.26 μm for L crowns and 88.84 μm for IZC crowns, and difference was statistically insignificant. However, L crowns showed significantly larger axial and occlusal gaps than IZC crowns (p<0.05). Fracture resistance of IZC-Multilink was higher than the other groups, although the difference was not significant. Results showed that CAD/CAM-fabricated crowns showed acceptable in vitro marginal discrepancies and fracture strengths.

show abstract

“…30 In terms of in vivo loading, the masticatory cycle consists of a combination of vertical and lateral forces, subjecting the restoration to a variety of off-axis loading forces. 31 However, it was the intention of the current study to give an indication as to whether or not the proposed minimal design would provide inlays with a similar structural integrity to traditionally prepared CEREC inlays.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Strength of Minimally Prepared Resin Bonded CEREC Inlays

Tsitrou

Helvatjoglou-Antoniades²,

Pahinis³

et al. 2009

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYPurpose: This study compared the structural integrity and fracture mode of teeth restored with traditionally and minimally prepared resinbonded CAD/CAM inlays fabricated from the same material.Methods: Forty intact maxillary premolars were used and divided into four groups. Two groups were prepared according to a traditional inlay preparation design (2.0 mm occlusal reduction, a 1.5 mm wide proximal box and divergent walls) and two groups were prepared according to a newly proposed minimal preparation design (round shaped cavity with 1.0 mm occlusal reduction, a U-shaped proximal box 1.0 mm wide and parallel walls). Two restorative systems were tested: a composite system comprised of Paradigm MZ100 (3M ESPE) blocks and RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) resin cement and a ceramic system comprised of ProCAD blocks (IvoclarVivadent) and Variolink II (Ivoclar-Vivadent) resin cement. The inlays were cemented according to the manufacturers' instructions. Each specimen was loaded axially to its occlusal surface at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute in a universal testing machine until fracture. The fracture load data were analyzed using ANOVA, comparing inlays of the same restorative material. Also, the mode of fracture of the inlays was recorded and analyzed using a non-parametric test (Kruskal-Wallis).Results: In the composite system case, the mean fracture load and SD were 1322 N (±445) for the traditional inlays and 1511 N (±395) for the mini- Clinical RelevanceMinimal preparation designs for inlay restorations are a viable option for CAD/CAM systems (CEREC) and could potentially strengthen the restored tooth. 538Operative Dentistry A mal inlays, while in the ceramic system case, those values were 1135N (±450) for the traditional inlays and 1761 N (±494) for the minimal inlays. Statistical analysis of the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two designs for the composite system, while for the ceramic system, the minimally prepared teeth showed higher mean fracture strength. Non-parametric analysis (KruskalWallis) of the mode of fracture showed that there was no statistically significant difference between traditionally and minimally prepared inlays for both systems (p>.05).Conclusions: Under the conditions of this experimental study, only the ceramic inlays, when prepared with a minimal preparation design, demonstrated a higher fracture strength as compared to the traditionally prepared teeth. Use of the proposed minimal preparation design did not compromise the immediate post-operative structural integrity of teeth restored either with resin composite or ceramic inlays.

show abstract

Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications

Cited by 129 publications

References 23 publications

The clinical potential and limits of the all-ceramic fixed partial denture restorations

The clinical potential and limits of the all-ceramic fixed partial denture restorations

Marginal-internal adaptation and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM crown restorations

Fracture Strength of Minimally Prepared Resin Bonded CEREC Inlays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About