METHODS: Forty maxillary central incisors were divided into two main groups based on the ceramic materials used; GroupI (Zir): zirconia endocrwons (Zolid HT+, Ceramill, Amanngirrbach) and GroupII (E-Max): e-max endocrowns (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). Both groups were further split into two subgroups depending on the cementation protocols; subgroup IA \"ZirMDP\": endocowns cemented with MDP primer + MDP resin cement, subgroup IB (ZirNon-MDP): cemented with MDP primer + non-MDP resin cement, subgroup IIA (E-maxMDP): cemented with MDP primer + MDP resin cement, subgroup IIB (E-maxNon-MDP): cemented with MDP primer + non-MDP resin cement. (n = 10/subgroup). Endocrowns were manufactured using CAD/ CAM. Teeth were subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles. The fracture test was performed at 45o with a palatal force direction until the fracture occurred. Test results were recorded in Newton. The failure mode was examined using a stereomicroscope. A One-way ANOVA test was utilized to compare different groups regarding fracture strength values. Tukey`s Post Hoc was utilized for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: The comparative analysis of fracture strength across the diverse groups yielded non-significant differences, as indicated by a p-value exceeding 0.05. Nonetheless, an observable trend emerged regarding the mode of failure. Specifically, a statistically significant prevalence was noted in fractures localized within the endocrown/tooth complex below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) across all groups, except for Group IIB, \"E-max Non-MDP,\" where fractures within the endocrown/tooth complex occurred above the CEJ.
CONCLUSIONS: Combining an MDP-based primer with an MDP-based resin cement did not result in a significant effect on the anterior endocrown fracture strength.
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the presence of the MDP monomer in its composition, adhesive resin cement achieved highly successful fracture strength when used with MDP-based ceramic primers. Additionally, ceramic materials exhibiting elastic moduli surpassing those of dentin are discouraged due to their propensity to induce catastrophic fractures within the tooth structure.
方法:根据所使用的陶瓷材料,将40颗上颌中切牙分为两个主要组;组I(Zir):氧化锆内分泌(ZolidHT,Ceramill,Amanngirrbach)和GroupII(E-Max):e-max内冠(IPSe.maxCAD,IvoclarVivadent)。根据胶结方案,将两组进一步分为两个亚组;IA亚组“ZirMDP”:用MDP底漆+MDP树脂水泥胶结的内胎,IB亚组(ZirNon-MDP):用MDP底漆+非MDP树脂水泥胶结,IIA亚组(E-maxMDP):用MDP底漆+MDP树脂水泥胶结,IIB亚组(E-maxNon-MDP):用MDP底漆+非MDP树脂水泥胶结。(n=10/亚组)。使用CAD/CAM制造内皮。牙齿经受10,000个热循环。在45o处以腭力方向进行骨折测试,直到发生骨折。测试结果以牛顿记录。使用立体显微镜检查故障模式。利用单向ANOVA测试来比较关于断裂强度值的不同组。Tukey的PostHoc被用于多重比较。
结果:不同组的断裂强度比较分析得出的差异不显著,如p值超过0.05所示。尽管如此,关于故障模式出现了一个可观察到的趋势。具体来说,在所有组的牙釉质交界处(CEJ)下方的内冠状/牙齿复合体内的骨折均具有统计学意义,除了IIB组,\"E-max非MDP,“内冠状/牙齿复合体内的骨折发生在CEJ上方。
结论:将基于MDP的底漆与基于MDP的树脂粘固剂结合使用不会对前腔内骨折强度产生显著影响。
结论:无论组合物中是否存在MDP单体,当与MDP基陶瓷底漆一起使用时,粘合剂树脂水泥获得了非常成功的断裂强度。此外,表现出超过牙本质的弹性模量的陶瓷材料是不鼓励的,因为它们倾向于在牙齿结构内引起灾难性的骨折。