Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations

2006 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 421-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Jose Soares ◽  
Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins ◽  
Rodrigo Borges Fonseca ◽  
Lourenco Correr-Sobrinho ◽  
Alfredo Julio Fernandes Neto
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Cavity Preparation ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
Preparation Design

scholarly journals Effect of cavity preparation design and ceramic type on the stress distribution, strain and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM onlays in molars

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Luíza Serralha de Velloso VIANNA ◽  
Célio Jesus do PRADO ◽  
Aline Aredes BICALHO ◽  
Renata Afonso da Silva PEREIRA ◽  
Flávio Domingues das NEVES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stress Distribution ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Cavity Preparation ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Preparation Design

In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations

2003 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Yildirim ◽  
Horst Fischer ◽  
Rudolf Marx ◽  
Daniel Edelhoff
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

scholarly journals Fracture resistance and 3D finite element analysis of machined ceramic crowns bonded to endodontically treated molars with two planes versus flat occlusal preparation designs: an in vitro study

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1020
Author(s):  
Omnia Nabil ◽  
Carl Hany Halim ◽  
Ashraf Hassan Mokhtar
Keyword(s):  
Stress Distribution ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
3D Finite Element ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Preparation Design ◽  
Distribution Of Stresses

Background: The flat occlusal preparation design (FOD) of posterior teeth offers promising results of fracture resistance and stress distribution, but its application in vital teeth is limited as there may be a danger of pulp injury. Although this danger is omitted in endodontically treated teeth, there is no research work assessing the impact of FOD on the fracture resistance and distribution of stresses among these teeth. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of FOD of endodontically treated molars on the fracture resistance and distribution of stresses among a ceramic crown-molar structure when compared to the two planes occlusal preparation design (TOD). Methods: 20 human mandibular molars were endodontically treated and distributed equally to two groups: Group I (TOD) and Group II (FOD). Ceramic CAD/CAM milled lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) crowns were produced for all preparations and adhered using self-adhesive resin cement. Using a universal testing machine, the fracture resistance test was performed. The fractured samples were examined using a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope to determine modes of failure. Stress distribution was evaluated by 3D finite element analysis, which was performed on digital models of endodontically treated mandibular molars (one model for each design). Results: Group II recorded statistically non-significant higher fracture resistance mean values (3107.2± 604.9 N) than Group I mean values (2962.6 ±524.27 N) as indicated by Student’s t-test (t=0.55, p= 0.57). Also, Group II resulted in more favorable failure mode as compared to Group I. Both preparation designs yielded low von-Mises stresses within the factor of safety. However, the stress distribution among different layers of the model differed. Conclusions: FOD having comparable fracture strength to TOD and a more favorable fracture behavior can be used for the preparation of endodontically treated molars.

Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated Lithium Disilicate MOD Inlays and Onlays with Various Cavity Preparation Designs

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. e524-e529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyung-In Yoon ◽  
Paul J. Sohn ◽  
Sharon Jin ◽  
Hawazin Elani ◽  
Sang J. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Cavity Preparation ◽  
Cad Cam

Ceramic laminate veneers: effect of preparation design and ceramic thickness on fracture resistance and marginal quality in vitro

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 2745-2754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Blunck ◽  
Sabine Fischer ◽  
Jan Hajtó ◽  
Stefan Frei ◽  
Roland Frankenberger
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Ceramic Thickness ◽  
Preparation Design ◽  
Laminate Veneers

scholarly journals Influence of preparation design and ceramic thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure modes of premolar partial coverage restorations

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra C. Guess ◽  
Stefan Schultheis ◽  
Martin Wolkewitz ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Joerg R. Strub
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Partial Coverage ◽  
Preparation Design

scholarly journals Fracture Resistance of Composite Veneers with Different Preparation Designs

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-103
Author(s):  
Katerina Zlatanovska ◽  
Ljuben Guguvcevski ◽  
Risto Popovski ◽  
Cena Dimova ◽  
Ana Minovska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Fracture Load ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Preparation Design ◽  
Frequent Localization ◽  
Group 1

Summary Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the fracture load of composite veneers using three different preparation designs. Material and methods: Fifteen extracted, intact, human maxillary central incisors were selected. Teeth were divided into three groups with different preparation design: 1) feather preparation, 2) bevel preparation, and 3) incisal overlap- palatal chamfer. Teeth were restored with composite veneers, and the specimens were loaded to failure. The localization of the fracture was recorded as incisal, gingival or combined. Results: Composite veneers with incisal overlap - palatal chamfer showed higher fracture resistance compared to feather preparation and bevel preparation. The mean (SD) fracture loads were: Group 1: 100.6±8.0 N, Group 2: 107.4±6.8 N, and Group 3: 122.0±8.8 N. The most common mode of failure was debonding for veneers with feather preparation and fracture when incisal edge is reduced. The most frequent localization of fracture was incisal. Conclusion: The type of preparation has a significant effect on fracture load for composite veneers. This study indicates that using an incisal overlap- palatal chamfer preparation design significantly increases the fracture resistance compared to feather and bevel preparation designs.

Influence of Ceramic Thickness and Ceramic Materials on Fracture Resistance of Posterior Partial Coverage Restorations

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
EM Bakeman ◽  
N Rego ◽  
Y Chaiyabutr ◽  
JC Kois
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Partial Coverage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Thickness ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

SUMMARY This study evaluated the influence of ceramic thickness and ceramic materials on fracture resistance of posterior partial coverage ceramic restorations. Forty extracted molars were allocated into four groups (n=10) to test for two variables: 1) the thickness of ceramic (1 mm or 2 mm) and 2) the ceramic materials (a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic [IPS e.max] or leucite-reinforced glass ceramic [IPS Empress]). All ceramic restorations were luted with resin cement (Variolink II) on the prepared teeth. These luted specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine, in the compression mode, with a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey Honestly Significantly Different multiple comparison test (α =0.05). The fracture resistance revealed a significant effect for materials (p<0.001); however, the thickness of ceramic was not significant (p=0.074), and the interaction between the thickness of ceramic and the materials was not significant (p=0.406). Mean (standard deviation) fracture resistance values were as follows: a 2-mm thickness of a lithium disilicate bonded to tooth structure (2505 [401] N) revealed a significantly higher fracture resistance than did a 1-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced (1569 [452] N) and a 2-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced ceramic bonded to tooth structure (1716 [436] N) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in fracture resistance values between a lithium disilicate ceramic at 1-mm thickness (2105 [567] N) and at 2-mm thickness. Using a lithium disilicate glass ceramic for partial coverage restoration significantly improved fracture resistance compared to using a leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The thickness of ceramic had no significant effect on fracture resistance when the ceramics were bonded to the underlying tooth structure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document