Influence of preparation design and spacing parameters on the risk of chipping of crowns made with Cerec Bluecam before cementation
Journal of Prosthodontic Research, ISSN: 1883-1958, Vol: 63, Issue: 1, Page: 100-104
2019
- 3Citations
- 55Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- Captures55
- Readers55
- 55
Article Description
To evaluate the influence of the preparation design and spacing parameters on the risk of chipping of crowns made by CEREC Bluecam before cementation. A knife-edge preparation and a chamfer preparation were made on upper premolars. The teeth were scanned and two Co–Cr alloy replicas were made. Fifteen full crowns were manufactured for four groups using CEREC. The groups differed in type of preparation (knife-edge (KE) or chamfer (CHA)) and spacing parameters: spacer (0 or 150 μm), marginal adhesive gap (10 or 50 or 150 μm) and margin thickness (0 or 300 μm). The four groups were: CHA 150 (spacer)- 50 (marginal adhesive gap)- 0 (margin thickness), KE 150-50-0, KE 150-50-300 and KE 150-150-300. The crowns were loaded before cementation by using an Instron machine to simulate the masticatory load applied during a trial. Differences in means were compared using two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc test (Tukey Test). The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. The fracture values, ordered from least to most resistant, were: KE 150-50-300 group, CHA 150-50-0 group, KE 150-50-0 group and KE 150-150-300 group. Two-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between pairs of means (p < 0.05). Tukey’s test showed that restorations of the KE 150-150-300 group can withstand a load significantly higher than that of other groups (p < 0.01). In this group, the failures were mostly minor chippings, while the other groups had mostly major chippings and fractures. Marginal adhesive gap can affect the trial of a full crown.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1883195818303542; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.09.003; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85055560953&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30385331; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1883195818303542; https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpr/63/1/63_100/_article/-char/en/; https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpr/63/1/63_100/_article/-char/ja/; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.09.003
Japan Prosthodontic Society
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know