Digitally Produced Fiber-Reinforced Composite Substructures for Three-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses
Digitally Produced Fiber-Reinforced Composite Substructures for Three-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses
复制标题
DOI：
10.11607/jomi.3892
复制
发表时间：
2015-03-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Coelho, Paulo G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bonfante, Estevam A.;Suzuki, Marcelo;Coelho, Paulo G.
本研究旨在评价用于种植体支持的固定牙修复体（ISFDPs）的计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）纤维增强复合材料（FRC）子结构的生存概率、Weibull模量、特征强度和失效模式。材料与方法：将三单元ISFDPs（第一磨牙桥体）制成整体复合材料件或复合材料贴面在CAD/CAM FRC子结构上，连接器面积为12 mm（2）或3 mm（2）（各n = 18），在水中进行步进应力加速寿命测试。计算生存率和生存率的三水平概率威布尔曲线。在偏振光和扫描电子显微镜下进行断口分析。结果：疲劳并没有加速任何组的失败，而假体强度是增加失败的主要因素（β < 1）。概率威布尔等值线图显示，12 mm（2）的ISFDP和整体复合材料ISFDP在特征强度（分别为eta = 643.5 N和742.7 N）或威布尔模量（分别为6.7和5.8）方面没有差异，但两者均显著高于3 mm（2）（444.91 N和9.57）。在300 N下进行100，000次使命循环时，两组的存活概率无统计学差异。在800 N以上的疲劳失效中观察到差异;单片复合ISFDPs灾难性地失效，而具有CAD/CAM FRC子结构的ISFDPs呈现单板/复合材料内聚或粘合失效。裂缝从咬合接触向边缘的内聚失败的复合材料，并在CAD/CAM FRC假体，竞争的失败模式的裂缝发展在连接器区域与那些在压痕接触观察。结论：之前在相同方法下测试的连接器面积为3 mm（2）或12 mm（2）的CAD/CAM FRC、单片复合材料或金属陶瓷ISFDP之间的生存概率没有差异。然而，检测到组间失效模式的差异。
This study aimed to evaluate the probability of survival, Weibull modulus, characteristic strength, and failure modes of computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) substructures used for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs). Materials and Methods: Three-unit ISFDPs (first molar pontic) fabricated as a monolithic composite piece or as composite veneered on a CAD/CAM FRC substructure with either a 12-mm(2) or 3-mm(2) connector area (n = 18 each) were subjected to step-stress accelerated life testing in water. Use-level probability Weibull curves and the probability of survival were calculated. Fractographic analysis was performed under polarized light and scanning electron microscopy. Results: Fatigue did not accelerate the failure of any group, whereas prosthesis strength was the main factor in increased failure (beta < 1). The probability Weibull contour plot showed no differences between the ISFDPs with 12 mm(2) and the monolithic composite ISFDP in characteristic strength (eta = 643.5 N and 742.7 N, respectively) or Weibull modulus (6.7 and 5.8, respectively), whereas both were significantly higher than 3 mm(2) (444.91 N and 9.57). The probability of survival was not statistically different between groups at 100,000 mission cycles at 300 N. Differences were observed in fatigue failures above 800 N; monolithic composite ISFDPs failed catastrophically, whereas those with CAD/CAM FRC substructures presented veneer/composite cohesive or adhesive failures. Cracks evolved from the occlusal contact toward the margins of the cohesively failed composite, and in CAD/CAM FRC prostheses, competing failure modes of cracks developing at the connector area with those at the indentation contact were observed. Conclusion: The probability of survival did not differ between CAD/CAM FRC with either 3-mm(2) or 12-mm(2) connector areas, monolithic composite, or metal-ceramic ISFDPs previously tested under the same methodology. However, differences in failure modes were detected between groups.