Cubas Gloria Beatriz de Azevedo, Camacho Guilherme Briao, Pereira-Cenci Tatiana, Nonaka Tomio, Barbin Eduardo Luiz
School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil.
Gen Dent. 2010 Mar-Apr;58(2):e84-8.
This study sought to evaluate how the type of cavity preparation and indirect restorative material affected the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars. Teeth were divided into seven groups (n = 14) according to the cavity preparation design (inlays, partial onlays with palatal canine coverage, and total onlays with coverage of both canines) and restorative material used. After the teeth were prepared, restorations were manufactured using a ceramic or a composite resin and cemented with a resin-based cement, with the exception of a control group consisting of sound premolars with no preparation. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine with a 9 mm steel ball at a speed of 0.5 mm/minute until fracture. ANOVA results showed significant differences between restorative materials and types of preparations (p < 0.05). Cavity design did not affect composite resin restorations, while ceramic restorations with partial and total canine coverage presented the lowest fracture resistance values (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, the authors concluded that indirect composite resin restorations offered better performance than ceramic restorations, regardless of the cavity design.
本研究旨在评估窝洞预备类型和间接修复材料如何影响上颌前磨牙的抗折性能。根据窝洞预备设计(嵌体、覆盖腭侧尖牙的部分高嵌体以及覆盖双侧尖牙的全高嵌体)和所使用的修复材料,将牙齿分为七组(n = 14)。牙齿预备完成后,除了一组由未做预备的健康前磨牙组成的对照组外,使用陶瓷或复合树脂制作修复体,并用树脂基水门汀粘固。使用万能试验机,以0.5毫米/分钟的速度用一个9毫米的钢球加载直至牙齿折断,评估抗折性能。方差分析结果显示修复材料和预备类型之间存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。窝洞设计对复合树脂修复体没有影响,而覆盖部分尖牙和全部尖牙的陶瓷修复体的抗折性能值最低(p < 0.05)。在本研究的局限性范围内,作者得出结论,无论窝洞设计如何,间接复合树脂修复体的性能均优于陶瓷修复体。