Suppr超能文献

不同类型带内六角种植体的CAD/CAM氧化锆基台的抗折性及失效模式比较:一项体外研究

Comparing the Fracture Resistance and Modes of Failure in Different Types of CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutments with Internal Hexagonal Implants: An In Vitro Study.

作者信息

Chang Yu-Tsen, Wu Yu-Ling, Chen Hung-Shyong, Tsai Ming-Hsu, Chang Chia-Chen, Wu Aaron Yu-Jen

机构信息

Department of Dentistry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cheng Shiu University, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.

出版信息

Materials (Basel). 2022 Apr 4;15(7):2656. doi: 10.3390/ma15072656.

Abstract

Three groups of zirconia abutments ( = 5) consisting of different connection designs or manufacturers were investigated (All-Zr, ASC-Zr, and AM-Zr groups). All-electric dynamic test instruments were used to place static loading on a specimen with a crosshead speed set at 1 mm/min. A Kruskal-Wallis test and a post hoc Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical evaluation. The mean fracture resistance was 252.37 ± 82.79 N for the All-Zr group, 384.62 ± 45.24 N for ASC-Zr group, and 361.83 ± 90.31 N for the AM-Zr group. The difference of fracture resistance between the three groups was marginally significant (Kruskal-Wallis test, = 0.054), with the ASC zirconia abutment tending to have higher fracture resistance than the full zirconia abutment. The modes of failure among the three types of abutments are different. The All-Zr group showed an oblique fracture line starting from the buccal aspect at the region of the implant platform. While the ASC-Zr and AM-Zr groups showed a relatively horizontal fracture line with a greater distance from the implant platform. The titanium inserts cannot significantly improve the fracture resistance of the zirconia abutment. However, they may alter the modes of failure, allowing buccal fracture surfaces of the zirconia abutments to be placed away from the implant platform, thereby protecting the implant-abutment connection.

摘要

研究了三组(每组n = 5)由不同连接设计或制造商提供的氧化锆基台(全锆基台组、ASC锆基台组和AM锆基台组)。使用全电动动态测试仪器对试件施加静态载荷,十字头速度设定为1 mm/min。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和事后Mann-Whitney U检验进行统计学评估。全锆基台组的平均抗折强度为252.37±82.79 N,ASC锆基台组为384.62±45.24 N,AM锆基台组为361.83±90.31 N。三组之间的抗折强度差异具有边缘显著性(Kruskal-Wallis检验,P = 0.054),ASC氧化锆基台的抗折强度往往高于全氧化锆基台。三种类型基台的失效模式不同。全锆基台组在种植体平台区域从颊侧出现一条斜向骨折线。而ASC锆基台组和AM锆基台组则显示出一条相对水平的骨折线,距种植体平台的距离更大。钛内芯不能显著提高氧化锆基台的抗折强度。然而,它们可能会改变失效模式,使氧化锆基台的颊侧骨折面远离种植体平台,从而保护种植体-基台连接。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c48b/9000730/fb372e9d8c50/materials-15-02656-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验