Potiket Narong, Chiche Gerard, Finger Israel M
School of Dentistry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Nov;92(5):491-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.001.
There is insufficient knowledge of the strength of all-ceramic crowns bonded to natural teeth to warrant the use of all-ceramic crowns in place of metal-ceramic crowns.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare fracture resistance of crowns made of 3 different types of 2 all-ceramic crown systems-0.4-mm and 0.6-mm aluminum oxide coping crowns and zirconia ceramic coping crowns-and metal-ceramic crowns.
Forty intact, noncarious human maxillary central incisors were divided into 4 groups (n=10): Group MCC (control), metal-ceramic crown (JRVT High Noble Alloy); Group AC4, crown with 0.4-mm aluminum oxide coping (Procera AllCeram); Group AC6, crown with 0.6-mm aluminum oxide coping (Procera AllCeram); and Group ZC6, crown with 0.6-mm zirconia ceramic coping (Procera AllZirkon). Teeth were prepared for complete-coverage all-ceramic crowns so that a final dimension of 5.5 +/- 0.5 mm was achieved incisocervically, mesiodistally, and faciolingually. A 1.0-mm deep shoulder finish line was used with a rounded internal line angle. All restorations were treated with bonding agent (Clearfil SE Bond) and luted with phosphate-monomer-modified adhesive cement (Panavia 21). Fracture strength was tested with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm per minute with an angle of 30 degrees to the long axis of the tooth after restorations were stored in 100% relative humidity of a normal saline solution for 7 days. The mode of fracture was examined visually. Means were calculated and analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (alpha=.05).
The means of fracture strength were: Group MCC, 405 +/- 130 N; Group AC4, 447 +/- 123 N; Group AC6, 476 +/- 174 N; and Group ZC6, 381 +/- 166 N. There was no significant difference between groups ( P =.501). The mode of failure for all specimens was fracture of the natural tooth.
There was no significant difference in the fracture strength of the teeth restored with all-ceramic crowns with 0.4- and 0.6-mm aluminum oxide copings, 0.6-mm zirconia ceramic copings, and metal ceramic crowns.
对于粘结在天然牙上的全瓷冠的强度了解不足,不足以保证使用全瓷冠替代金属烤瓷冠。
本研究的目的是评估和比较由3种不同类型的2种全瓷冠系统(0.4毫米和0.6毫米氧化铝基底冠以及氧化锆陶瓷基底冠)和金属烤瓷冠制成的冠的抗折强度。
40颗完整、无龋的人上颌中切牙被分为4组(n = 10):MCC组(对照组),金属烤瓷冠(JRVT高贵金属合金);AC4组,0.4毫米氧化铝基底冠的冠(Procera AllCeram);AC6组,0.6毫米氧化铝基底冠的冠(Procera AllCeram);ZC6组,0.6毫米氧化锆陶瓷基底冠的冠(Procera AllZirkon)。对牙齿进行全瓷冠修复预备,使近远中、唇舌向和切颈向最终尺寸达到5.5±0.5毫米。使用1.0毫米深的肩台边缘线,内部线角倒圆。所有修复体均用粘结剂(Clearfil SE Bond)处理,并用磷酸盐单体改性粘结水门汀(Panavia 21)粘结。修复体在100%相对湿度的生理盐水溶液中储存7天后,用万能试验机以每分钟2毫米的十字头速度与牙齿长轴呈30度角测试抗折强度。肉眼检查断裂模式。计算平均值,并采用单因素方差分析和Tukey's HSD检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。
抗折强度平均值为:MCC组,405±130 N;AC4组,447±123 N;AC6组,476±174 N;ZC6组,381±166 N。各组之间无显著差异(P = 0.501)。所有标本的失败模式均为天然牙折断。
使用0.4毫米和0.6毫米氧化铝基底冠、0.6毫米氧化锆陶瓷基底冠的全瓷冠以及金属烤瓷冠修复的牙齿在抗折强度上无显著差异。