Rosentritt Martin, Sawaljanow Alexander, Behr Michael, Kolbeck Carola, Preis Verena
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Jan;19(1):53-60. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1209-2. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
This study investigated toothbrush abrasion and in vitro aging on ceramic (indirect technique) and composite veneers (direct technique).
Identical composite and individual human incisors were restored with industrially preformed composite veneers, indirectly produced ceramic veneers, and direct composite restorations. Surface roughness was determined before and after tooth brushing. A 5-year period of oral service was simulated by thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML). After TCML, all specimens were examined with microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Specimens without failures during TCML were loaded until failure.
analysis of variance; Bonferroni's post hoc analysis, Kaplan-Meier-Log Rank test (α = 0.05).
Tooth brushing yielded a non-significant increase (p = 0.560) in roughness in all materials (industrial veneer, 0.12+/-0.07 μm, direct restoration, 0.18+/-0.14 μm, ceramic, 0.35+/-0.16 μm). No significant differences in roughness could be determined between the materials, neither before nor after testing (p < 0.001). After TCML of artificial teeth, direct and preformed composite veneers on composite teeth showed no failures or damages. Two ceramic veneers showed cracking in the labial area. After TCML of human teeth, transmission microscopy indicated a facial crack in a ceramic veneer and chipping in the cervical area of a preformed veneer. Two direct composite veneers lost retention. No significantly different survival rates were found between the three veneer groups. Fracture force on human teeth varied between 527.8+/-132.4 N (ceramic), 478.3+/-165.4 N (preformed composite), and 605.0+/-263.5 N (direct composite).
All materials revealed comparable wear resistance. Indirect ceramic, direct restorative composite, and preformed composite veneers showed comparable failure rates and satisfying longevity.
The results indicate similar longevity of the chosen materials for veneer restorations.
本研究调查了陶瓷贴面(间接技术)和复合树脂贴面(直接技术)的牙刷磨损及体外老化情况。
用工业预制复合树脂贴面、间接制作的陶瓷贴面和直接复合树脂修复体修复相同的复合树脂材料及单个的人切牙。在刷牙前后测定表面粗糙度。通过热循环和机械加载(TCML)模拟5年的口腔使用期。在TCML后,所有标本用显微镜和扫描电子显微镜检查。在TCML期间未出现失败的标本加载直至失败。
方差分析;Bonferroni事后分析,Kaplan-Meier对数秩检验(α = 0.05)。
刷牙后所有材料(工业贴面,0.12±0.07μm;直接修复体,0.18±0.14μm;陶瓷,0.35±0.16μm)的粗糙度增加不显著(p = 0.560)。在测试前后,材料之间的粗糙度均无显著差异(p < 0.001)。在人工牙进行TCML后,复合树脂牙上的直接和预制复合树脂贴面未出现失败或损坏。两片陶瓷贴面在唇面区域出现裂纹。在人牙进行TCML后,透射显微镜显示一片陶瓷贴面出现面部裂纹,一片预制贴面在颈部区域出现崩瓷。两片直接复合树脂贴面失去固位力。三组贴面之间未发现显著不同的生存率。人牙的断裂力在陶瓷贴面为527.8±132.4N、预制复合树脂贴面为478.3±165.4N、直接复合树脂贴面为605.0±263.5N之间变化。
所有材料显示出相当的耐磨性。间接陶瓷、直接修复复合树脂和预制复合树脂贴面显示出相当的失败率和令人满意的使用寿命。
结果表明所选的贴面修复材料具有相似的使用寿命。