Isil Cekic-Nagas, Ferhan Egilmez, Gulfem Ergun, Pekka Kalevi Vallittu, Lippo Veli Juhana Lassila
Journal: Dental materials journal 2018;37(1):49-58
PMID: 29081445
To evaluate the influence of different materials on the load-bearing-capacity of inlay-retained fixed-dental-prosthesis (FDP). Ten types of FDPs were evaluated (n=7/group): Group PEEK: CAD-CAM polyetheretherketone (PEEK-TechnoMed), Group RC, made of discontinuous-fiber-composite (EverX Posterior); Group FRC1, made of discontinuous-fiber-composite (EverX Posterior) with two-bundles of continuous-unidirectional fiber-reinforced-composite (FRC) (Everstick C&B); Group FRC2, made of discontinuous-fiber-composite (EverX Posterior) with two-bundles of continuous-unidirectional-FRC (Everstick C&B) covered by two-pieces of short-unidirectional-FRC (Everstick C&B) placed perpendicular to the main-framework; Group FB, CAD-CAM fiber-block (Fibra-Composite Bio-C); Group PMMA, CAD-CAM polymethyl methacrylate block (Temp basic); Group RP, resin-paste; Group FRP1, made of resin-paste (G-Fix) with two-bundles of continuous-unidirectional-FRC (Everstick C&B); Group FRP2, made of resin-paste (G-Fix) two-bundles of continuous-unidirectional-FRC covered by two-pieces of short unidirectional-FRC placed perpendicular to the main-framework and Group exp-FRC, experimental CAD-CAM FRC. The bridges were statically-loaded until fracture. Fracture modes were visually examined. ANOVA revealed that significant differences were observed between FDP-materials (p<0.05). In addition, fiber addition to the framework significantly affected load-bearing-capacity (p<0.05).
Full Text Sources:
Other Literature Sources:
Miscellaneous:
Full Text Sources:
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.