首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials >Step-stress vs. staircase fatigue tests to evaluate the effect of intaglio adjustment on the fatigue behavior of simplified lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations
【24h】

Step-stress vs. staircase fatigue tests to evaluate the effect of intaglio adjustment on the fatigue behavior of simplified lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations

机译:阶梯式压力与楼梯疲劳试验评估凹版调节对简化锂静止玻璃陶瓷修复件的疲劳行为的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes for the fatigue mechanical behavior of bonded simplified lithium disilicate restorations, with and without an internal adjustment by grinding with diamond bur in running two fatigue tests: Staircase and Step-stress testing approaches. Ceramic discs (IPS e.max CAD) were prepared ((sic) = 10 mm; thickness = 1.0 mm), submitted to an in-lab simulation of CAD/CAM milling (#60 SiC paper) and allocated into 2 groups according to the internal adjustment by grinding of the cementation surface: no adjustment (CTRL); or grinding with a coarse diamond bur (GR). Adhesive cementation (Multilink N) was performed onto epoxy resin discs ((sic) = 10 mm; thickness = 2 mm) after ceramic/epoxy surface treatments. The cemented assemblies of each group were randomly assigned into 2 subgroups considering two fatigue tests (n = 15): Staircase - SC (250,000 cycles; 20 Hz), or Step-stress - SS (10,000 cycles per step; 20 Hz). Roughness, topographic and fractographic analyses were additionally performed. Statistical analyses were carried out using the Dixon and Mood method for Staircase data, and Kaplan-Meier and Mantel-Cox (log-rank) tests for Step-stress data. Ceramic restorations having its intaglio surface ground (GR group: SC test = 306.67 N; SS test = 646.67 N) presented lower fatigue failure load (FFL) values than the CTRL group (SC test = 879.28 N; SS test = 1090.00 N), regardless of the fatigue testing approach. The percentage of mean FFL decrease comparing the CTRL to GR group was higher for SC (65.1%) than the SS (40.7%) approach. However, a different total number of cycles was applied for each method. Both fatigue tests were able to detect the negative effect of internal adjustments of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic simplified restorations on their mechanical behavior. Therefore, both methods can be applied for similar evaluations (fatigue testing for ceramic restorations).
机译:本研究的目的是比较粘结简化二硅酸锂修复体的疲劳力学行为结果,在进行两种疲劳试验:阶梯式和阶梯式应力试验方法的情况下,使用金刚石钻进行内部调整与否。制备了陶瓷盘(IPS e.max CAD)((sic)=10 mm;厚度=1.0 mm),提交给CAD/CAM铣削实验室模拟(#60碳化硅纸),并根据胶结表面磨削的内部调整分为2组:无调整(CTRL);或者用粗金刚石钻(GR)研磨。在环氧树脂圆盘上进行粘合剂粘接(Multilink N)((sic)=10 mm;陶瓷/环氧树脂表面处理后的厚度=2 mm)。考虑到两次疲劳试验(n=15),每组的胶结组件被随机分配到两个亚组:楼梯-SC(250000次循环;20 Hz)或台阶应力-SS(每一步10000次循环;20 Hz)。此外,还进行了粗糙度、地形和断口分析。使用Dixon和Mood方法对楼梯数据进行统计分析,使用Kaplan-Meier和Mantel-Cox(对数秩)检验对台阶压力数据进行统计分析。无论采用何种疲劳试验方法,凹版表面研磨的陶瓷修复体(GR组:SC试验=306.67 N;SS试验=646.67 N)的疲劳破坏载荷(FFL)值均低于CTRL组(SC试验=879.28 N;SS试验=1090.00 N)。与对照组和GR组相比,SC组的平均FFL下降百分比(65.1%)高于SS组(40.7%)。然而,每种方法的总循环次数不同。两种疲劳试验都能够检测到二硅酸锂微晶玻璃简化修复体内部调整对其力学性能的负面影响。因此,这两种方法可用于类似的评估(陶瓷修复体的疲劳试验)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号