You are here

Home » Content

ÜÇ FARKLI SİMAN AJANININ TURKOM CERATM TAM SERAMİK KRONLARI N VERTİKAL KIRILMA DİRENCİ ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ

THE EFFECT OF THREE DIFFERENT LUTING AGENT ON THE COMPRESSIF FRACTURE STRENGTH OF TURKOM CERATM ALL CERAMIC RESTORATIONS

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: The current study investigated the effect of different luting cements on the fracture strength of Turkom CeraTM all ceramic crowns. Methods: Thirty master dies were dupiicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth. Thirty Turkom CeraTM copings of 0.5 mm thickness were manufactured and they were veneered. Three types of luting agent were used: Znnc Phosphate cement (Adhesor), resin modified glass ionomer cement (G CEM) and dual cured composite resin cement (Clearfill Esthetic Cement). Ten all ceramic crowns were cemented with each type. A static load of 50 N were applied to all specimens durnng cementation wtth a precision loading device. All ceramic crowns were vertically compressed using an universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure occurred. Results: There were no statisticaly significant differences between the groups. The fracture strength results showed that the mean fracture strength of cured composite resin cement (Clearfill Esthetic Cement), Zinc Phosphate cement (Adhesor) and resin modified glass ionomer cement (G CEM) were 1494 N, 1353 N and 1177 N, respectiveyy. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was found that the three luting agents did not affect the fracture strength of Turkom CeraTM all ceramics.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çalışmada farklı simanaarın Turkom CeraTM tam seramik kronların kırılma dayanıklılığına olan etkisi araştırılmıştır. Metot: 30 adet ana güdük prepare edilmşş maksiller birinci premolar diş şeklinde üreti/mşştir. 0,5mm kalınlığındaki 30 Turkom CeraTM koping üretilmiş ve kaplanmıştır. Üç tip siman materyali kullanılmıştır: Çinko Fosfat (Adhesor), Reznn Modffiye Cam İyonomer Siman (G CEM), ve Dual Cure Kompoztt Reznn Siman (Clearfill Esthetic Cement). Her siman için 10 tam seramik kron simante edilmiştir. Tüm gruplar üretici talimatlarınca ve duyarlı yüklenme aygıtı kullanarak 50 Nluk statik kuvvet altında simante edi/mşşlerdir. Tam seramik kronlar, üniversal test aygıtında başarısız/ık gerçekleşene kadar (0,5 mm/dak) vertikal oaarak yüklenmeye tabii tutulmuşlardır. Bulgular: Grupaar arasında belirgin bir farklık bulunmamıştır. Kırılma dayanıklılık testi sonuçları sırasıyla kompoztt reznn siman için 1494 N, çinko fosfat siman için 1353 N, ve reznn modffiye cam yyonomer siman için 1777N oaarak bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar: Bu çahşmanın limitleri dahilinde, üç simantasyon ajanı Turkom CeraTM tam seramik kronların kırılma dayanıklılıklarına etki etmemektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-uc-farkli-siman-ajaninin-turkom-ceratm-tam-seramik-kronlari-n-vertikal-kirilma-direnci-uzerine-etkisi.pdf
  • 2
47-52
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. McLean JW. Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:61-6.
2. Chai J, Takahashi Y, Sulaiman F, Chong K, Lautenschlager EP. Probability of fracture of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:420-4.
3. Rosenblum MA, Schulman A. A review of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:297-307.
4.
Yavuzyılma
z H, Turhan B, Bavbek B, Kurt E. Tam porselen sistemleri II. Gazi Üni Dişhek Fak Derg.
2005;22:46-60.
5. Strub JR, Beschnidt SM. Fracture strength of 5 different all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:602-9.
6. Al-Makramani BM, Razak AA, Abu-Hassan MI. Effect of luting cements on the compressive strength of Turkom-Cera all-ceramic copings. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008;9:33-40.
7. Yoshinari M, Derand T. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:329-38.
8. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:462-7.
9. Philp GK, Brukl CE. Compressive strengths of conventional, twin foil, and all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52:215-20.
10. Sobrinho LC, Cattel MJ, Glover RH, Knowles JC. Investigation of the dry and wet fatigue properties of three all-ceramic crown systems. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:255-62.
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
Cilt:18, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2008, Sayfa: 47-52
ZORTÜRK, YAĞCI, KILINÇ,
GÜMÜŞ, AGÜLOĞLU
11. Probster L. Survival rate of In-Ceram restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:259-63.
12. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Hillis SL. Clinical assessment of high-strength all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:396-401.
13. Lee SK, Wilson PR. Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns with varying core elastic moduli. Aust Dent
J. 2000;45:103-7.
14. White SN, Caputo AA, Vidjak FM, Seghi RR. Moduli of rupture of layered dental ceramics. Dent Mater.
1994;10:52-8.
15. Hwang JW, Yang JH. Fracture strength of copy-milled and conventional In-Ceram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:678-83.
16. Casson AM, Glyn Jones JC, Youngson CC, Wood DJ. The effect of luting media on the fracture resistance of a flame sprayed all-ceramic crown. J Dent. 2001;29:539-44.
17. Kelly JR. Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent.
1999;81:652-61.
18. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Chai J, Sansano S, Shonberg D. Resistance to staining, flexural strength, and chemical solubility of core porcelains for all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14:284-8.
19. McCormick JT, Rowland W, Shillingburg HT, Jr., Duncanson MG, Jr. Effect of luting media on the compressive strengths of two types of all-ceramic crown. Quintessence Int. 1993;24:405-8.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com