| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Kern, M.
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (2/2 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Survival and debonding resistance of posterior cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses for moderately and severely worn dentition during thermomechanical loading.
Abstract
<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of this study was to investigate the survival rate, the debonding resistance, and the failure modes of different occlusal veneer designs when used as a retainer for posterior cantilever, resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) at two tooth wear levels.<h4>Methods</h4>Four test groups were assigned: two groups with occlusal-proximal preparation (PT1 and PT2 for grade 1 and 2 wear), and two groups for occlusal-proximal and lingual preparation (PLT1 and PLT2 for grade 1 and 2 wear). Monolithic zirconia ceramic (3Y-TZP) RBFDPs were luted with an adhesive bonding system (Panavia V5). The specimens underwent a chewing simulation for 1.200.000 cycles with a load of 5 kg and thermocycling for 7500 cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C. The surviving restorations were debonded under quasi-static conditions. The results were analyzed with ANOVA.<h4>Results</h4>The specimens exhibited a 100 % survival rate after thermomechanical fatigue loading. The debonding resistance was statistically significant higher for group PLT1 than for group PT1 (P = 0.004), and higher for group PT2 than group PT1 (P ≤ 0.001). However, the debonding resistance showed no statistically significant difference between groups PT2 and PLT2 (P = 0.343), and groups PLT1 and PLT2 (P = 0.222). Groups PT1 and PT2 showed favorable failure modes in 62.5 % and 0.00 % of the specimens, respectively. While groups PLT1 and PLT2 presented 25 % favorable failure modes.<h4>Significance</h4>Occlusal veneers showed promising results as a retainer for cantilever RBFDPs. The lingual extension might increase debonding resistance. Nevertheless, conservative designs with lingual and proximal bevels are to be recommended, irrespective of the level of tooth wear.