Influence of different cavity preparation designs on fracture resistance of onlay and overlay restorations using different CAD/CAM materials

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorSalman, Gizem On
dc.contributor.authorTacir, Ibrahim Halil
dc.contributor.authorPolat, Zelal Seyfioglu
dc.contributor.authorSalman, Afsin
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:37:32Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:37:32Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate fracture strength of different preparation designed onlay and overlay restorations produced by Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three different new ceramic polymer blocks. Methods: Ninety-one extracted human mandibular molars were used in this study. Preparations were made as (1) Only functional cusps reduction, (2) Only functional cusps reduction+rounded shoulder finish line, (3) All cusps reduction, or (4) All cusps reduction+rounded shoulder fmish line. Then these four cavity types were restored with three different materials: VITA Enamic, GC Cerasmart, Lava Ultimate. Thirteen groups were created by added control group (n= 7). Adhesive cementation was achieved by using a dual cured composite resin adhesive cement RelyX Ultimate. All samples were subjected to thermocycling for 5,000 cycles in water baths between 50 degrees C and 55 degrees C. The fracture resistance of specimens was determined under compressive loads along the long axis of the restored teeth at 0.5 mm/minute crosshead speed until fracture with a universal test machine. Fracture types of restored groups were evaluated. For fracture resistance data, one-way ANOVA; for correlation between material type and preparation design, two-way ANOVA were used. Percentage table and Kruskal-Wallis test were performed for analysis of fracture types. Results: There was no significant difference between all the groups (one-way ANOVA, P> 0.05). Group 4 showed statistically higher fracture strength values than Group 1 and no significant difference was found among other preparation designs by two-way ANOVA that compared all types of preparation designs regardless of material difference (P< 0.05).en_US
dc.identifier.endpage170en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-8275
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid29178763
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85021344448
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage165en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/21006
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000402587600009
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMosher & Linder, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Dentistry
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keyword]en_US
dc.titleInfluence of different cavity preparation designs on fracture resistance of onlay and overlay restorations using different CAD/CAM materialsen_US
dc.titleInfluence of different cavity preparation designs on fracture resistance of onlay and overlay restorations using different CAD/CAM materials
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu