不同厚度全锆牙合贴面的断裂载荷及失效模式研究

›› 2018, Vol. 9 ›› Issue (4): 182-186.

不同厚度全锆牙合贴面的断裂载荷及失效模式研究

曾晓燕¹,施佳丽¹,王柏华¹,李梦圆¹,游苒²,胡建¹,李林¹

1. 南京医科大学附属口腔医院
2. 南京医科大学附属医院

收稿日期:2018-07-04 修回日期:2018-10-26 出版日期:2018-12-25 发布日期:2019-01-07
通讯作者: 胡建 E-mail:hujianmjc@sohu.com
基金资助:
江苏省高校优势学科建设工程资助项目;江苏省高校大学生创新创业训练计划项目

Effects of thickness on fracture strength and failure mode of full-contour zirconia occlusal veneers

Received:2018-07-04 Revised:2018-10-26 Online:2018-12-25 Published:2019-01-07
Contact: Jian Hu E-mail:hujianmjc@sohu.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 探究贴面厚度以及牙体预备形式对全锆贴面的抗折性能及失效模式的影响。方法：预备标准人工磨牙形成3组不同形式的预备体：A组面均匀磨除0.5 mm，B组面均匀磨除0.5 mm，轴面包绕高度1.5 mm，C组面均匀磨除0.5 mm，并预备髓腔固位。采用CAD/CAM系统，通过Dental Designer软件，将每组分别设计为0.5 mm、1.0 mm、1.5 mm三种不同厚度，共制作出72个贴面；测试不同牙体预备形式及不同厚度的贴面的断裂载荷，并分析其失效模式。结果：不同牙体预备形式及不同厚度的全锆贴面的平均断裂载荷值为：A组：（1275.9±205.6）N（0.5 mm厚度）；（2320.6±296.7）N（1.0 mm厚度）；（4909.1±399.3）N（1.5 mm厚度）；B组：（1404.5±215.3）N（0.5 mm厚度）；（2509.8±380.6）N（1.0 mm厚度）；（4917.8±320.4）N（1.5 mm厚度）；C组：（1279.6±248.4）N（0.5 mm厚度）；（2346.6±260.2）N（1.0 mm厚度）；（4575.3±458.7）N（1.5 mm厚度）。随着厚度的增加，全锆贴面的抗折性能也随之增加，同一牙体预备形式不同厚度的断裂载荷有统计学差异，不同牙体预备形式同一厚度的断裂载荷无统计学差异。0.5 mm与1.0 mm组别的失效模式（修复体折裂）相似，与1.5 mm组别的失效模式（修复体与代型同时折裂）存在差异。结论：全锆贴面厚度对其抗折性能有影响，抗折性能随着其厚度的增加而增大。牙体预备形式对贴面的抗折性能没有影响。厚度为0.5 mm的全锆贴面可以满足临床需要。

Abstract: Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the thickness and tooth preparation on fracture strength and failure mode of full-contour zirconia occlusal veneer. Methods：Standard artificial molars of 3 different groups(n=72) were prepared:Group A: the occlusal surface was ground of evenly by 0.5 mm; Group B: the occlusal surface was ground of evenly by 0.5 mm, and the axial surface was parceled for 1.5 mm; Group C: the occlusal surface was ground of evenly by 0.5 mm, and cavity fixation was prepared. Three different models of full contour zirconia occlusal veneers were designed with different thickness of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 1.5 mm respectively using CAD/CAM system and Dental Designer software. Fracture strength and failure mode of zirconia occlusal veneers were measured and recorded. Results：The average fracture strength value of full-contour zirconia occlusal veneer with different thicknesses and different preparation were: Group A:（1275.9±205.6）N（0.5 mm）,（2320.6±296.7）N（1.0 mm）,（4909.1±399.3）N（1.5 mm）；Group B:（1404.5±215.3）N（0.5 mm）,（2509.8±380.6）N（1.0 mm）,（4917.8±320.4）N（1.5 mm）；Group C:（1279.6±248.4）N（0.5 mm）,（2346.6±260.2）N（1.0 mm）,（4575.3±458.7）N（1.5 mm）. Fracture strength of full-contour zirconia occlusal veneers increased in parallel with the increase of their thickness. Fracture strength of occlusal veneers with different thickness and preparation was significantly different, while that of occlusal veneers with the same thickness but different preparation showed no significant difference. The failure mode of 0.5 mm group was similar to that of 1.0 mm group but different from that of 1.5 mm group. Conclusions：Thickness is a positive correlation factor for the fracture strength of full-contour zirconia occlusal veneers. Preparation has no effect on the fracture strength of occlusal veneers. 0.5 mm is an acceptable thickness for zirconia occlusal veneers in clinical practice.

曾晓燕施佳丽王柏华李梦圆游苒胡建李林. 不同厚度全锆牙合贴面的断裂载荷及失效模式研究[J]. , 2018, 9(4): 182-186.

参考文献

[1]Cortellini D, Canale A.Bonding lithium disilicate ceramic to feather-edge tooth preparations: a minimally invasive treatment concept[J].J Adhes Dent, 2012, 14(1):7-10 [2]Yazigi C, Kern M, Chaar MS.Influence of various bonding techniques on the fracture strength of thin CAD/CAM-fabricated occlusal glass-ceramic veneers[J]. [J].J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017, 75:504-511 [3]Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, et al.In vitro fatigue resistance of CADCAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers[J].J Prosthet Dent, 2010, 104(3):149-157 [4]Rawlinson A, Winstanley RB.The management of severe dental erosion using posterior occlusal porcelain veneers and an anterior overdenture[J].Restorative Dent, 1988, 4(1):10-16 [5]Chen C, Trindade FZ, de Jager N, et al.The fracture resistance of a CADCAM Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC) and a CAD ceramic at different thicknesses[J].Dent Mater, 2014, 30(9):954-962 [6]陈曦，章非敏，胡建.两种不同厚度椅旁全瓷材料断裂强度的实验研究[J].南京医科大学学报自然科学版, 2015, 35(11):1632-1636 [7]Egbert JS, Johnson AC, Tantbirojn D, et al.Fracture strength of ultrathin occlusal veneer restorations made from CADCAM composite or hybrid ceramic materials[J].Oral Science International, 2015, 12(2):53-58 [8]Alshehri S.A. An investigation into the role of core porcelain thickness and lamination in determining the flexural strength of In-Ceram dental materials[J].J Prosthodont, 2011, 20(4):261-266 [9]Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, et al.Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations[J].Dent Mater, 2014, 30(4):424-432 [10]Kunzelmann K.H.,Jelen B,Mehl A.,et al. Wear evaluation of MZ100 compared to ceramic CADCAM materials[J].Int J Comput Dent, 2001, 4(3):171-184 [11]Kern Matthias.Resin Bonding to Oxide Ceramics for Dental Restorations[J].Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2009, 23(7-8):1097-1111 [12]李东健, 周珊羽, 温兴涛.冠厚度对全锆修复体抗折性能和失效模式的影响[J].口腔颌面修复学杂志, 2016, 17(2):107-110 [13]Skouridou N.Pollington S,Rosentritt M.,et al. Fracture strength of minimally prepared all-ceramic CEREC crowns after simulating 5 years of service[J].Dent Mater, 2013, 29(6):e70-77 [14]Sasse M, Krummel A, Klosa K, et al.Influence of restoration thickness and dental bonding surface on the fracture resistance of full-coverage occlusal veneers made from lithium disilicate ceramic[J].Dent Mater, 2015, 31(8):907-915 [15]Sun Ting, Zhou Shanyu, Lai Renfa, et al.Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns[J].[J].Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2014, 35:93-101 [16]Johnson AC, Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, et al.Fracture strength of CADCAM composite and composite-ceramic occlusal veneers[J].J Prosthodont Res, 2014, 58(2):107-114 [17]Varga S.Spalj S,Lapter Varga M.,et al. Maximum voluntary molar bite force in subjects with normal occlusion[J].Eur J Orthod, 2011, 33(4):427-433 [18]Layton D.Walton TAn up to 16-year prospective study of 304 porcelain veneers[J].Int J Prosthodont, 2007, 20(4):389-396 [19]Beier U.S.,Kapferer I,Burtscher D.,et al. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years[J].Int J Prosthodont, 2012, 25(1):79-85 [20]Beier U.S.,Kapferer I,Burtscher D.,et al. Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth[J].Int J Prosthodont, 2012, 25(4):395-402 [21]Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio F B, Braga MM, et al.Survival Rate of Resin and Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [J].J Dent Res, 2016, 95(9):985-994