BASAMAK TİPİ VE KONİKLİK AÇISININ LİTYUM DİSİLİKAT CAM SERAMİKLERİN BASKI DAYANIMINA ETKİSİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2018, Volume: 28 Issue: 4, 545 - 552, 14.10.2018

Hatice Özdemir L.ihsan Aladağ

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473965

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı basamak tipi ve koniklik
açısının lityum disilikat cam seramiklerin baskı dayanımına olan etkisini değerlendirmektir.

Gereç
ve Yöntem: Baskı dayanıklılığı testi
için farklı basamak tipi (chamfer ve shoulder) ve 2 farklı koniklik açısında
(6° ve 12°) 40 adet metal day hazırlandı. Metal day üzerine IPS
e.max Press örnekler simante edildikten sonra baskı testi uygulandı.

Bulgular: Veriler Varyans analizi (ANOVA) ile değerlendirildi ve
sonuçlar istatistiksel olarak önemli bulunmuştur (p=0.00). 12° konik açılı
shoulder basa- mak tipli örnekler en yüksek (3534.40±159.50 MPa), 6° konik
açılı chamfer örnekler ise en düşük (2281.28± 171.31 MPa) baskı dayanımı
değerlerini göstermiştir.

Sonuç: Koniklik açısı ve basamak tipinin farklı olması IPS
e.max Press' in baskı dayanımını etkilemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Lityum disilikat cam seramik, baskı dayanımı, basamak, koniklik açısı

EVALUATION OF
THE EFFECT OF MARGINAL DESIGN AND TAPER ANGLE ON THE FRACTURE STRENGTH OF
LITHIUM DISILICATE GLASS CERAMICS

ABSTRACT

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of
different margin designs and taper angel on fracture strength of lithium
disilicate glass ceramics.

Materials
and Methods: A total of 40 metal die
samples with different margin designs (shoulder and chamfer) and two different
taper angel (6° ve 12°) were prepared for fracture strength test.
Fracture force was applied after IPS e.max Press samples was cemented to the
metal dies.

Results: The data were analyzed with ANOVA and the results were
statistically significant (p=0.00).. The samples with 12° taper angle and
shoulder margin design showed the highest fracture strength (3534.40±159.50
MPa), the samples with 6° taper angle and chamfer margin design showed the lowest
fracture strength (2281.28±171.31 MPa).

Conclusion: Different taper angle and margin design effect the
fracture strength of IPS e.max Press.

Keywords: Lithium disilicate glass ceramic, fracture strength,
margin design, taper angle

Keywords

Lityum disilikat cam seramik, baskı dayanımı, basamak

References

• 1. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:374-80.
• 2. Bozoğulları HN. İki farklı tam seramik kor materyalinin baskı dayanıklılığı ve marjinal uyumu üzerine farklı marjinal dizayn ve taper açılarının etkisi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı. Doktora tezi, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2007.
• 3. Ivoclar Vivadent AG. The Compatible All-Ceramic System, Dental Technician and Instructor, Schaan, Liechtenstein, 2005.
• 4. Shillingburg HT, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of Tooth Preparations, Chicago, Quintessence Books, 1991.
• 5. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundementals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3th edition, London, U.K: Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., 1997: s. 400-5, 433-52.
• 6. Zaimoğlu A, Can G. Sabit protezler, Ankara, A Ü Dişhek Fak Yayınları, 2004.
• 7. Korkmaz C. Tam seramiklerin diş hekimliğindeki yeri. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2014;24:136-40.
• 8. Anusavice KJ. Philips' Science of Dental Materials, 11th ed. Saunders, St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2003:655-719.
• 9. Craig RG. Restorative Dental Materials, 9th ed. Mosby, St. Louis, 1993.
• 10. Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: An art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:363-76.
• 11. Pallis K, Griggs JA, Woody RD, Guillen GE, Miller AW. Fracture resistance of three all-ceramic restorative systems for posterior applications. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:561-9.
• 12. Wood KC, Berzins DW, Luo Q, Thompson GA, Toth JM, Nagy WV. Resistance to fracture of two all -ceramic crown materials following endodontics access. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:33-41.
• 13. Strub JR, Beschnidt SM. Fracture strength of 5 different all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:602-9.
• 14. Blatz MB. Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior restorations, Quintessence Int 2002;33:415-26.
• 15. Komine F, Tomic M, Gerds T, Strub JR. Influence of different adhesive resin cements on the fracture strength of aluminum oxide ceramic posterior crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:359-64.
• 16. Kiliaridis S, Kjellberg H, Wenneberg B, Engstrom C. The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance and facial morphology during growth. A cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:323-31.
• 17. Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years. Part II: Effect of thickness of Dicor material and design of tooth preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:662-7.
• 18. Yoshinari M, Derand T. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:329-38.
• 19. McLean JW. New dental ceramics and esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1995;7:141-9.
• 20. Anusavice KJ, Hojjatie B. Tensile stress in glass-ceramic crowns: Effect of flaws and cement voids. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:351-8.
• 21. Chen HY, Hickel R, Setcos JC, Kunzelmann KH. Effects of surface finish and fatigue testing on the fracture strength of CAD/CAM and pressed ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:468-75.
• 22. Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:652-61.
• 23. Knobloch L, Kerby RE, Berlin JS, Lee J. Fracture toughness of resin-based luting cements. J Dent Res 1997;76:155 (abstract 1131).
• 24. Mendonca JS, Gomes JEF, Franca MTC, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL. Diametral tensile strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cements. J Dent Res 1997;76:318 (abstract 2440).
• 25. De Jager N, De Kler M, Van Der Zel JM. The influence of different core material on the FEA-determined stress distribution in dental crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22:234-42.
• 26. Etemadi S, Smales RJ, Drummond PW, Goodhart JR. Assessment of tooth preparation design for posterior resin-bonded porcelain restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:691-7.
• 27. Moscovich H, Creugers NH, Jansen JA, Wolke JG. Loss of sound tooth structure when replacing amalgam restorations by adhesive inlays. Oper Dent 1998;23:327-31.
• 28. Soares CJ, Martins LRM, Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Neto AJF. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:421-9.
• 29. Güngör MA, Dündar M, Karaoğlu Ç, Sonugelen M, Artunç C. Tam seramik malzemelerde basamak şeklinin gerilim dağılımına etkisi: Sonlu elemanlar stres analizi. Ege Üniv Dişhek Fak Derg 2005;26:145-53.
• 30. Butel EM, Campell JC, DiFiore PM. Crown margin desig: A dental school survey. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:303-5.
• 31. Ohyama T, Yoshinari M, Oda Y. Effect of cyclic loading on the strength of all-ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:28-37. 32. Parker MH, Malone KH, Trier AC. Evaluation of resistance form for prepared teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:730-3.
• 33. Trier AC, Parker MH, Cameron SM. Evaluation of resistance form of dislodged crowns and retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:405-9.
• 34. Yavuz Ö, Toksavul S, User A. Tüm seramik kronların kırılma dayanıklılıklarının seramometal restorasyonlarla karşılaştırılması. Ege Üniv Dişhek Fak Derg 1999;20:102-10.
• 35. Attia A, Kern M. Influence of cyclic loading and luting agents on the fracture load of two all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:551-6.
• 36. Oyar P, Ulusoy M, Eskitaşçıoğlu G. Finite element analysis of stress distribution in ceramic crowns fabricated with different tooth preparation designs. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:871-7.
• 37. Oyar P, Ulusoy M, Eskitaşçıoğlu G. Finite element analysis of stress distribution of 2 different tooth preparation designs in porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:85-91.
• 38. Miura S, Kasahara S, Yamauchi S, Egusa H. Effect of finish line design on stress distribution in bilayer and monolithic zirconia crowns: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. Eur J Oral Sci 2018;126:159–65.