Cargando…
Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of ceramic veneers and composite resin veneers with and without dental preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10): Group NPR...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988214 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_349_17 |
_version_ | 1783332587347902464 |
---|---|
author | Linhares, Ludmilla Azevedo Pottmaier, Larissa Fernanda Lopes, Guilherme Carpena |
author_facet | Linhares, Ludmilla Azevedo Pottmaier, Larissa Fernanda Lopes, Guilherme Carpena |
author_sort | Linhares, Ludmilla Azevedo |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of ceramic veneers and composite resin veneers with and without dental preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10): Group NPR = no dental preparation and direct veneer with 0.2 mm thick composite resin (Amelogen Plus, Ultradent); Group NPC = no dental preparation and 0.2 mm thick lithium disilicate ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group P2C = Tooth preparation of 0.2 mm and 0.2 mm thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press); and Group P5C = Tooth preparation of 0.5 mm and 0.5 mm-thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press). In all groups, the restorations covered 1 mm of the occlusal surface of the buccal cusp, and the thickness of this area was the same of the buccal area (0.2 mm or 0.5 mm). After the luting procedure, all groups were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C) and subjected to fracture resistance test under compression (Instron 4444 with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min). The mode of failure analysis was performed under a ×10 magnification. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance (men ± standard deviation) was NPR = 690.33 ± 233, NPC = 790.52 ± 408, P2C = 1131.34 ± 341, and P5C = 983.56 ± 202. There were significant differences of the fracture resistance values between all groups (P = 0.013). NPR and NPC groups showed mean values of fracture resistance significantly lower than P2C. However, P5C presented intermediate values without a significant difference from the other groups. The mode of failure for all groups was mixed (60%), cohesive failures (20%), root failures (15%), and adhesive failures (5%). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive tooth preparation (0.2-mm) allowed to achieve higher fracture resistance in premolars restored with lithium disilicate ceramic veneers. Attention should be given to the 0.5 mm preparation since catastrophic fractures only happened when this preparation depth was performed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6004806 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60048062018-07-09 Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars Linhares, Ludmilla Azevedo Pottmaier, Larissa Fernanda Lopes, Guilherme Carpena Eur J Dent Original Article OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of ceramic veneers and composite resin veneers with and without dental preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10): Group NPR = no dental preparation and direct veneer with 0.2 mm thick composite resin (Amelogen Plus, Ultradent); Group NPC = no dental preparation and 0.2 mm thick lithium disilicate ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group P2C = Tooth preparation of 0.2 mm and 0.2 mm thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press); and Group P5C = Tooth preparation of 0.5 mm and 0.5 mm-thick ceramic veneer (IPS e.max Press). In all groups, the restorations covered 1 mm of the occlusal surface of the buccal cusp, and the thickness of this area was the same of the buccal area (0.2 mm or 0.5 mm). After the luting procedure, all groups were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C–55°C) and subjected to fracture resistance test under compression (Instron 4444 with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min). The mode of failure analysis was performed under a ×10 magnification. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance (men ± standard deviation) was NPR = 690.33 ± 233, NPC = 790.52 ± 408, P2C = 1131.34 ± 341, and P5C = 983.56 ± 202. There were significant differences of the fracture resistance values between all groups (P = 0.013). NPR and NPC groups showed mean values of fracture resistance significantly lower than P2C. However, P5C presented intermediate values without a significant difference from the other groups. The mode of failure for all groups was mixed (60%), cohesive failures (20%), root failures (15%), and adhesive failures (5%). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive tooth preparation (0.2-mm) allowed to achieve higher fracture resistance in premolars restored with lithium disilicate ceramic veneers. Attention should be given to the 0.5 mm preparation since catastrophic fractures only happened when this preparation depth was performed. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6004806/ /pubmed/29988214 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_349_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 European Journal of Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Linhares, Ludmilla Azevedo Pottmaier, Larissa Fernanda Lopes, Guilherme Carpena Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title | Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title_full | Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title_fullStr | Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title_full_unstemmed | Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title_short | Fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
title_sort | fracture resistance of veneers in premolars |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988214 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_349_17 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT linharesludmillaazevedo fractureresistanceofveneersinpremolars AT pottmaierlarissafernanda fractureresistanceofveneersinpremolars AT lopesguilhermecarpena fractureresistanceofveneersinpremolars |