Journals / Selcuk Dental Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of the fracture strength of different CAD/CAM inlay restorations after accelerated aging

Farklı CAD/CAM inlay restorasyonların yapay yaşlandırma sonrası kırılma dayanımlarının incelenmesi

Pages
155–162
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, all ofthe tested materials are suitable for use in the posterior reg

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The purpose of this study was to compare thefracture resistance of inlay restorations manufactured by computeraided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) usingdifferent materials after accelerated artificial aging.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Class I inlay preparations were made for40 mandibular molar teeth.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, all ofthe tested materials are suitable for use in the posterior reg
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare thefracture resistance of inlay restorations manufactured by computeraided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) usingdifferent materials after accelerated artificial aging. Materials and Methods: Class I inlay preparations were made for40 mandibular molar teeth. The teeth were allocated into fourgroups (n=10) according to the type of manufacturing materialused: feldspathic-ceramic (CEREC blocks); leucite-based glassceramic (IPS Empress CAD); resin nano-ceramic (Lava Ultimate);and a control (intact teeth). After obtaining digital impressions,restorations were designed and milled with CAD/CAM. Inlayrestorations were cemented to the inlay cavities using a dualpolymerizing resin cement (Rely X Ultimate) and stored in distilledwater at 37°C for a week. All the samples were then exposed toaccelerated ultraviolet aging for 300 hours. Finally, a compressiveload was applied to the samples until fracture. Statistical analysiswas conducted using One-Way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test(α=0.05).Results: The mean fracture strength values of the groups were;Control (1555.3±412.2 N)> Lava Ultimate (1525±394N)>IPSEmpress CAD (1364.3±545.6N) > CEREC(1231.9±412.2N),respectively. However, there was no statistically significantdifference in mean fracture strength among different inlayrestoration groups (P>0.05). Fifty percent of the both CEREC andIPS Empress CAD groups and 60% of the Lava Ultimate groupshowed reparable fractures.Conclusion: The type of material used did not influence thefracture strength of inlay-restored molar teeth and inlay restorationsdid not weaken the strength of the restored teeth. Therefore, all ofthe tested materials are suitable for use in the posterior reg

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı materyaller kullanılarak bilgisayar destekli tasarım/bilgisayar destekli üretim (CAD/CAM) ile üretilen inley restorasyonların hızlandırılmış yapay yaşlandırma sonrasında kırılma direncini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kırk adet mandibular molar dişe sınıf I inlay preparasyonu yapıldı. Dişler, kullanılan malzeme tipine göre dört gruba (n = 10) ayrıldı: feldspatik-seramik (CEREC Blocks); lösit bazlı cam seramik (IPS Empress CAD); rezin nano-seramik (Lava Ultimate); ve kontrol (sağlam dişler). Dijital ölçüler elde edildikten sonra restorasyonlar CAD/CAM ile tasarlandı ve üretildi. İnlay restorasyonlar, dual polimerize bir rezin siman (Rely X Ultimate) kullanılarak inlay boşluklarına simante edildi ve bir hafta boyunca 37°C'de distile su içinde saklandı. Tüm örnekler daha sonra 300 saat boyunca hızlandırılmış ultraviyole yaşlandırmasına maruz bırakıldı. Son olarak, kırılıncaya kadar örneklere bir sıkıştırma yükü uygulandı. İstatistiksel analiz Tek Yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey HSD testi (α= 0,05) kullanılarak yapıldı. Bulgular: Grupların ortalama kırılma dayanımları sırasıyla şu şekildedir: Kontrol (1555,3±412,2 N) > Lava Ultimate (1525±394 N) > IPS Empress CAD (1364,3±545,6 N) > CEREC (1231,9±412,2 N). Ancak grupların ortalama kırılma dayanımları arasında istatistiksel bir fark bulunamadı (P>0,05). CEREC ve IPS Empress CAD gruplarının %50’si ve Lava Ultimate grubunun %60’ı tamir edilebilir kırık tipi sergiledi. Sonuç: Kullanılan materyal tipi, inley ile restore edilmiş molar dişlerin kırılma direncini etkilememiştir ve inley restorasyonlar restore edilen dişlerin gücünü zayıflatmamıştır. Bu nedenle, test edilen tüm materyaller posterior bölgede kullanılabili

🔖

Cite This Article

SAVAŞ, T. Y., KARAOKUTAN, I., SUBAŞI, M. G., AYKENT, F. (2022). Evaluation of the fracture strength of different CAD/CAM inlay restorations after accelerated aging. Selcuk Dental Journal, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 155–162. https://ajindex.com/articles/591437

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89(6): 551 -7
  2. Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013; 29(12): 1209-18
  3. Seow LL, Toh CG, Wilson NH. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with all-ceramic restorations. J Dent 2015; 43(1): 126-32
  4. Batalha-Silva S, de Andrada MA, Maia HP, Magne P. Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: direct versus CAD/CAM inlays. Dent Mater 2013; 29(3): 324-31
  5. Liu X, Fok A, Li H. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater 2014; 30(3): 327-33
  6. Frankenberger R, Hartmann V, Krech M, Krämer N, Reich S, Braun A. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2015; 18: 9-20
  7. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008; 204(9): 505- 11
  8. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115(2): 199-202
  9. Quinn GD, Giuseppetti AA, Hoffman KH. Chipping fracture resistance of dental CAD/CAM restorative materials: part I--procedures and results. Dent Mater 2014; 30(5): 99-111. 10.Vasquez VZ, Ozcan M, Kimpara ET. Evaluation of interface characterization and adhesion of glass ceramics to commercially pure titanium and gold alloy after thermal- and mechanical-loading. Dent Mater 2009; 25(2): 221 -31. 11.Zhang Y, Lawn B. Long-term strength of ceramics for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004; 69(2): 166-72. 12.Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014; 30(4): 424-32. 13.Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114(4): 587-93. 14.Koller M, Arnetzl GV, Holly L, Arnetzl G. Lava ultimate resin nano ceramic for CAD/ CAM: customization case study. Int J Comput Dent 2012; 15(2): 159-64
  10. Harada A, Nakamura K, Kanno T, Inagaki R, Ortengren U, Niwano Y, Sasaki K, Egusa H. Fracture resistance of computer-aided design/compu