In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
复制标题
不同粘接修复体修复后牙牙尖折断阻力的体外比较。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Balkan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. S. Çötert;B. H. Şen;M. Balkan
目的
本研究比较了5种不同粘接剂修复后牙的牙尖抗折力。
材料和方法
这项研究包括84颗健康的人类磨牙。将样本磨牙分成7组。前5组采用近(牙合)远中窝洞预备，分别采用(1)银汞合金+甲基丙烯酸甲酯粘固粉，(2)后牙复合体，(3)直接复合体嵌体，(4)铸造金属嵌体，(5)全瓷嵌体修复。第六组和第七组在研究中被引入作为对照。第6组标本准备好，但不进行修复测试(仅准备组)。第7组样本为完整的牙齿，测试为未准备好。所有的样品都被轴向加载，直到失效。
结果
虽然未准备好的牙齿的阻力明显高于所有其他组，但只准备好的牙齿是最弱的。不同修复体的牙尖抗折力差异无统计学意义。
结论
未准备组和仅准备组的平均牙尖抗折力之间的差异有统计学意义。修复组比仅准备组更强。然而，修复组之间的差异并不显著。
PURPOSE
This study compared the cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with five different adhesive restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eighty-four sound human molars were included in this study. Sample molars were divided into seven groups. The first five groups received mesio-occlusodistal cavity preparations and were restored with (1) amalgam combined with urethane dimethacrylate cement, (2) posterior composite, (3) direct composite inlay, (4) cast-metal inlay, and (5) complete ceramic inlay. The sixth and seventh groups were introduced in the study as controls. Samples of group 6 were prepared but were tested without restoration (prepared-only group). Samples of group 7 were intact teeth and were tested as unprepared. All samples were loaded axially until failure.
RESULTS
While the unprepared teeth had a significantly higher resistance than all other groups, the prepared-only teeth were the weakest. No significant differences were found in resistance to cuspal fracture among the restoration groups.
CONCLUSION
The difference between the mean cuspal fracture resistance of the unprepared and prepared-only groups was statistically significant. Restoration groups were stronger than the prepared-only group. However, differences between the restoration groups were insignificant.