Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Samhan, Talaat Mohamed
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Zaghloul, Hanaa
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Science
Texto Completo: https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896
Resumo: Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of different preparation designs and different surface treatments on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis [IRFDP]. Material and methods: Forty-five translucent zirconia IRFDPs were divided into three groups according to preparation designs (n = 15); group I: proximal box, group II: inlay-box and group III: butterfly wing (modified inlay). Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to the surface treatments utilized (n = 5); sandblasting, tribochemical silica coating (Cojet system) and erbium, chromium: Yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser irradiation. All zirconia IRFDPs were cemented to their respective resin models using selfadhesive resin cement. All cemented IRFDPs were subjected to fracture resistance test using universal testing machine. The initial fracture site was determined by using a stereomicroscope (x6.7magnification). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of different designs, different surface treatments and their interaction on the mean fracture resistance. Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was used when ANOVA is significant (P ? 0.05). Results: Butterfly wings design showed the highest fracture resistance values followed by inlay and box designs respectively (P ? 0.05). Sandblasting and Cojet showed significantly the highest mean fracture resistance values than Laser with no significance difference between them. Conclusion: The butterfly wing design increased the fracture resistance of the zirconia IRFDPs. Sandblasting and tribochemical silica coating of zirconia surfaces had a greater effect than Er, Cr: YSGG laser to gain higher fracture resistance of zirconia IRRDPs.KEYWORDSInlay-retained FDPs; Monolithic zirconia; Preparation designs; Surface treatments; fracture resistance.
id UNESP-20_a0506f679b93147140ee134e4e58f793
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1896
network_acronym_str UNESP-20
network_name_str Brazilian Dental Science
repository_id_str
spelling Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatmentsObjective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of different preparation designs and different surface treatments on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis [IRFDP]. Material and methods: Forty-five translucent zirconia IRFDPs were divided into three groups according to preparation designs (n = 15); group I: proximal box, group II: inlay-box and group III: butterfly wing (modified inlay). Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to the surface treatments utilized (n = 5); sandblasting, tribochemical silica coating (Cojet system) and erbium, chromium: Yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser irradiation. All zirconia IRFDPs were cemented to their respective resin models using selfadhesive resin cement. All cemented IRFDPs were subjected to fracture resistance test using universal testing machine. The initial fracture site was determined by using a stereomicroscope (x6.7magnification). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of different designs, different surface treatments and their interaction on the mean fracture resistance. Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was used when ANOVA is significant (P ? 0.05). Results: Butterfly wings design showed the highest fracture resistance values followed by inlay and box designs respectively (P ? 0.05). Sandblasting and Cojet showed significantly the highest mean fracture resistance values than Laser with no significance difference between them. Conclusion: The butterfly wing design increased the fracture resistance of the zirconia IRFDPs. Sandblasting and tribochemical silica coating of zirconia surfaces had a greater effect than Er, Cr: YSGG laser to gain higher fracture resistance of zirconia IRRDPs.KEYWORDSInlay-retained FDPs; Monolithic zirconia; Preparation designs; Surface treatments; fracture resistance.Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos2020-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfimage/jpegimage/jpegimage/pngimage/jpegimage/jpegimage/jpegapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documenthttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/189610.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.1896Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 23 No. 2 (2020): : Apr. - Jun. / 2020 - Published Apr. 2020; 10 p.Brazilian Dental Science; v. 23 n. 2 (2020): : Apr. - Jun. / 2020 - Published Apr. 2020; 10 p.2178-6011reponame:Brazilian Dental Scienceinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)instacron:UNESPenghttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/1473https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3945https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3946https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3947https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3948https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3949https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3950https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3952Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Dental Scienceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSamhan, Talaat MohamedZaghloul, Hanaa2020-06-30T17:27:17Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1896Revistahttp://bds.ict.unesp.br/PUBhttp://ojs.fosjc.unesp.br/index.php/index/oaisergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br2178-60112178-6011opendoar:2022-11-08T16:30:26.805009Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)true
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
title Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
spellingShingle Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
Samhan, Talaat Mohamed
title_short Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
title_full Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
title_fullStr Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
title_full_unstemmed Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
title_sort Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
author Samhan, Talaat Mohamed
author_facet Samhan, Talaat Mohamed
Zaghloul, Hanaa
author_role author
author2 Zaghloul, Hanaa
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Samhan, Talaat Mohamed
Zaghloul, Hanaa
description Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of different preparation designs and different surface treatments on the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis [IRFDP]. Material and methods: Forty-five translucent zirconia IRFDPs were divided into three groups according to preparation designs (n = 15); group I: proximal box, group II: inlay-box and group III: butterfly wing (modified inlay). Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to the surface treatments utilized (n = 5); sandblasting, tribochemical silica coating (Cojet system) and erbium, chromium: Yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser irradiation. All zirconia IRFDPs were cemented to their respective resin models using selfadhesive resin cement. All cemented IRFDPs were subjected to fracture resistance test using universal testing machine. The initial fracture site was determined by using a stereomicroscope (x6.7magnification). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of different designs, different surface treatments and their interaction on the mean fracture resistance. Bonferroni’s post-hoc test was used when ANOVA is significant (P ? 0.05). Results: Butterfly wings design showed the highest fracture resistance values followed by inlay and box designs respectively (P ? 0.05). Sandblasting and Cojet showed significantly the highest mean fracture resistance values than Laser with no significance difference between them. Conclusion: The butterfly wing design increased the fracture resistance of the zirconia IRFDPs. Sandblasting and tribochemical silica coating of zirconia surfaces had a greater effect than Er, Cr: YSGG laser to gain higher fracture resistance of zirconia IRRDPs.KEYWORDSInlay-retained FDPs; Monolithic zirconia; Preparation designs; Surface treatments; fracture resistance.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-03-31
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896
10.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.1896
url https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896
identifier_str_mv 10.14295/bds.2020.v23i2.1896
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/1473
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3945
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3946
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3947
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3948
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3949
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3950
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1896/3952
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Dental Science
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Brazilian Dental Science
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
image/jpeg
image/jpeg
image/png
image/jpeg
image/jpeg
image/jpeg
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 23 No. 2 (2020): : Apr. - Jun. / 2020 - Published Apr. 2020; 10 p.
Brazilian Dental Science; v. 23 n. 2 (2020): : Apr. - Jun. / 2020 - Published Apr. 2020; 10 p.
2178-6011
reponame:Brazilian Dental Science
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Brazilian Dental Science
collection Brazilian Dental Science
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv sergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br
_version_ 1788346901363425280