论文部分内容阅读
目的比较不同基底材料的瓷修复体用于种植修复时的抗压强度。方法分别基于离体牙(对照组)和种植基台制作钴铬合金烤瓷、钛烤瓷、贵金属烤瓷(75%Au合金)和全瓷修复体,粘接后在咬合面进行循环加载,直至出现修复体瓷层破坏,记录最大加载次数。结果四种修复体,用于离体基牙时出现破坏的最大加载次数(万次)分别为159.3±6.7,147.7±2.4,149.5±3.3和138.6±7.1;用于种植基台时分别为167.6±2.7,149.7±6.5,152.8±4.3和122.0±4.6。钴铬烤瓷修复用于种植基台时比用于离体基牙时可承受更多的加载次数(P<0.05),而全瓷修复体则相反(P<0.05);用于种植基台修复时,钴铬烤瓷承受加载次数较多,而全瓷修复体可承受的加载次数最少,均有统计学意义(P<0.05),钛烤瓷及贵金属烤瓷居中。结论针对种植体基台瓷修复体,较高弹性模量的钴铬合金烤瓷抗压强度最好,全瓷修复相对较差。
Objective To compare the compressive strength of porcelain prostheses with different base materials for implant repair. Methods Cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain, titanium porcelain, precious metal porcelain (75% Au alloy) and all-ceramic restoration were made on the basis of excised teeth (control group) and planting abutments respectively. After bonding, Until the restoration of porcelain damage, record the maximum number of loading. Results The maximum number of loadings (10,000 times) of the four prostheses used for detachment of abutments were 159.3 ± 6.7, 147.7 ± 2.4, 149.5 ± 3.3 and 138.6 ± 7.1, respectively, and 167.6 ± 2.7, 149.7 ± 6.5, 152.8 ± 4.3 and 122.0 ± 4.6. Cobalt-chromium porcelain restoration was more suitable for implant abutments than for abutments (P <0.05), while porcelain restorations were reversed (P <0.05) When repaired, the cobalt-chromium porcelain was loaded more frequently, while the full ceramic restorations had the least load, both of which were statistically significant (P <0.05). Titanium porcelain and precious metal porcelain were centered. Conclusion With respect to implant abutment porcelain restoration, the compressive strength of cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain with the highest elastic modulus is the best, and the all-ceramic restoration is relatively poor.