Load to failure of three different monolithic zirconia inlay- retained fixed dental prosthesis designs with three surface treatments
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | |
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 |