Effect of different preparation designs and material types on fracture resistance of minimally invasive posterior indirect adhesive restorations

Ahmed Sheir,Walid Al‐Zordk,Amal Abdelsamad Sakrana
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13958
2024-09-29
Journal of Prosthodontics
Abstract:Purpose To evaluate the impact of various preparation designs and the material type on fracture resistance of minimally invasive posterior indirect adhesive restorations after aging using a digital standardization method. Materials and Methods One‐hundred sixty human maxillary premolars free from caries were assigned into 16 groups (n = 10): bevel design on enamel substrate with mesial box only (VEM), butt joint design on enamel substrate with mesial box only (BEM), bevel design on enamel substrate with mesial and distal box (VED), butt joint design on enamel substrate with mesial and distal box (BED), bevel design on dentin substrate with mesial box only (VDM), butt joint design on dentin substrate with mesial box only (BDM), bevel design on dentin substrate with mesial and distal box (VDD), and butt joint design on dentin substrate with mesial and distal box (BDD). Each group was restored with pressable lithium disilicate (LS2) or disperse‐filled polymer composite (DPC) materials. Adhesive resin cement was used to bond the restorations. The specimens were aged for 10,000 thermal cycles (5°C and 55°C), then 240,000 chewing cycles. Each specimen was subjected to compressive axial load until failure. A two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by a post hoc Tukey test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Results The two‐way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference among designs (p
dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
What problem does this paper attempt to address?