Department of Adult Dental Care, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Claremont Crescent, S10 2TA, Sheffield, UK.
J Dent. 2010 Jan;38(1):16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.07.003.
This study was a preliminary evaluation of two minimal preparation designs proposed for ceramic and composite resin bonded CAD/CAM crowns. It compared the structural integrity and fracture mode of teeth restored with traditionally and minimally prepared resin bonded CAD/CAM crowns fabricated from the same material hypothesizing that teeth restored with minimal resin bonded crowns would demonstrate the same fracture strength to teeth restored with traditional resin bonded crowns.
Forty intact maxillary molar teeth were used and divided in four groups. Two groups were prepared according to a traditional crown preparation design and two groups were prepared according to minimal preparation designs. A resin composite (Paradigm MZ100, 3M ESPE) and a leucite glass-ceramic (ProCAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were used for the fabrication of the crowns using CEREC Scan. Crowns of ceramic were cemented using Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent) and crowns of composite with Rely X Unicem Aplicap (3M ESPE) and loaded until fracture. Load data was analysed using ANOVA comparing crowns of the same restorative material. The mode of fracture was also recorded and analysed (Kruskal-Wallis).
For the composite system the mean fracture load and SD was 1682N (+/-315) for the traditional and 1751N (+/-338) for the minimal crowns. For the ceramic system the mean fracture load and SD was 1512N (+/-373) for the traditional and 1837 (+/-356) for the minimal crowns. No statistically significant difference was found between the two designs for each system. Nonparametric analysis (Kruskal-Wallis) of the fracture mode showed no statistical significant difference between designs for either material (p>.05).
Within the limitations of this experimental design, it was found that minimally prepared resin bonded CEREC crowns demonstrated equal fracture resistance and mode of fracture to that of crowns bonded to traditionally prepared teeth.
本研究初步评估了两种针对陶瓷和复合树脂粘结 CAD/CAM 冠的最小预备设计。它比较了使用相同材料制作的传统和最小预备树脂粘结 CAD/CAM 冠修复的牙齿的结构完整性和断裂模式,假设最小预备树脂粘结冠修复的牙齿的断裂强度与传统树脂粘结冠修复的牙齿相同。
使用 40 颗完整的上颌磨牙,分为四组。两组按照传统冠预备设计预备,两组按照最小预备设计预备。使用 CEREC Scan 制作树脂复合(Paradigm MZ100,3M ESPE)和锂辉石玻璃陶瓷(ProCAD,Ivoclar Vivadent)冠。陶瓷冠用 Variolink II(Ivoclar Vivadent)粘结,复合树脂冠用 Rely X Unicem Aplicap(3M ESPE)粘结,直到断裂。使用 ANOVA 分析比较相同修复材料的冠的载荷数据。还记录并分析了断裂模式(Kruskal-Wallis)。
对于复合体系,传统冠的平均断裂载荷和 SD 为 1682N(+/-315),最小冠为 1751N(+/-338)。对于陶瓷体系,传统冠的平均断裂载荷和 SD 为 1512N(+/-373),最小冠为 1837(+/-356)。每个系统的两种设计之间没有统计学上的显著差异。两种材料的断裂模式的非参数分析(Kruskal-Wallis)显示设计之间没有统计学上的显著差异(p>.05)。
在本实验设计的限制内,发现最小预备树脂粘结 CEREC 冠具有与粘结到传统预备牙齿相同的断裂阻力和断裂模式。