Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil.
J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Jan;55(1):53-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2010.07.001. Epub 2010 Oct 12.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of human maxillary premolars restored with 2 ceramic systems (Vitadur Alpha and In Ceram) comparing 3 preparation designs and 2 luting agents.
Seventy sound teeth were prepared to receive ceramic restorations (Vitadur Alpha; n=14) as follows: (1) control, sound premolars, with no preparation, (2) inlays, (3) partial onlays (palatal cuspid coverage), (4) total onlays (both cuspids coverage), and (5) total onlays with an In Ceram core. The ceramic restorations were cemented using Enforce or RelyX ARC (half restorations with each cement), placed into the cavity and held under pressure, except for the control group. The teeth were subjected to compressive axial loading at 0.5 mm min⁻¹ using a 9 mm steel ball until fracture. Data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test (α=.05).
There was a significant difference between cements and among preparation designs (P<.05). All restorations cemented with Enforce exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance (P<.05). Inlay restorations showed similar fracture resistance when compared to control group (P>.05). Partial and total onlays did not statistically differ and showed the weakest performance. The use of an In Ceram core did not produce higher fracture resistance.
Within the limitations of this study, the cements tested had different mechanical properties, while cuspid coverage did not result in improved fracture resistance of the restored teeth.
本研究旨在评估两种陶瓷系统（Vitadur Alpha 和 In Ceram）修复上颌前磨牙的抗折能力，比较三种预备设计和两种黏固剂。
70 颗健康的牙齿被制备成接受陶瓷修复体（Vitadur Alpha；n=14），具体如下：（1）对照组，健康前磨牙，无预备；（2）嵌体；（3）部分高嵌体（腭尖覆盖）；（4）全高嵌体（两个尖牙覆盖）；（5）全高嵌体并用 In Ceram 核。使用 Enforce 或 RelyX ARC（每种黏固剂各半）黏固陶瓷修复体，将其放入腔体内并施加压力，除对照组外。牙齿以 0.5mm/min 的速度进行轴向压缩加载，使用 9mm 钢球直至发生断裂。使用三因素方差分析和事后 Tukey 检验（α=.05）对数据进行分析。
黏固剂和预备设计之间存在显著差异（P<.05）。所有用 Enforce 黏固的修复体均表现出显著更高的抗折强度（P<.05）。嵌体修复体与对照组相比具有相似的抗折强度（P>.05）。部分高嵌体和全高嵌体之间没有统计学差异，表现出较弱的性能。使用 In Ceram 核并不能提高修复体的抗折强度。
在本研究的限制范围内，所测试的黏固剂具有不同的机械性能，而尖牙覆盖并不能提高修复牙的抗折能力。
