Literature DB >> 12186346

Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth.

Daniel Edelhoff1, John A Sorensen.   

Abstract

The amount of tooth structure removed for various innovative and conventional preparation designs for fixed prosthodontics was quantified. Four Typodont resin teeth representing maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars were prepared in various abutment designs: adhesive, box (A2); adhesive, wing and groove (A3); mesioocclusal or distoocclusal inlay; mesio-occlusodistal inlay (13); mesio-occlusodistal onlay; partial crown; half crown (only molars); complete crown, 0.8-mm circumferential tapered chamfer (F1); complete crown, 1.0-mm circumferential rounded shoulder; and complete crown, 1.4-mm axial reduction facial shoulder, 0.7-mm lingual chamfer (F3). After tooth preparation (10 per group), the root was separated from the anatomic crown at the cementoenamel junction. Removal of tooth structure was measured by gravimetric analysis in a high-precision balance. Preparations A3 and F3 were assigned as abutments for metal-supported restorations, whereas all other preparations were used for all-ceramic restorations. When the mean structure removal of all teeth tested was compared, the adhesive and inlay abutments were the least invasive preparation designs, ranging from approximately 5.5% (A2) to 27.2% (13) tooth structure removal. Complete crowns required the most invasive preparations, ranging from 67.5% (F1) to 75.6% (F3) tooth structure removal. The tooth structure removal required for F3 retainers was almost 14 times greater than for an A2 preparation. Tooth structure removal was also influenced by the morphology of the tooth. The first comprehensive tooth preparation design classification system was introduced. The measurement system used in this study provides an accurate method of quantifying tooth structure removal for fixed prosthodontic preparations. The innovative preparation designs studied conserved significant amounts of tooth structure, yielding a better prognosis for the restored tooth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12186346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent        ISSN: 0198-7569            Impact factor:   1.840


  26 in total

1.  Tooth substance removal for ceramic single crown materials-an in vitro comparison.

Authors:  Franz Sebastian Schwindling; Moritz Waldecker; Peter Rammelsberg; Stefan Rues; Wolfgang Bömicke
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  The influence of FRCs reinforcement on marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM composite resin endocrowns after simulated fatigue loading.

Authors:  Giovanni Tommaso Rocca; Carlo Massimo Saratti; Antoine Poncet; Albert J Feilzer; Ivo Krejci
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 3.  Tooth preparation for full-coverage restorations-a literature review.

Authors:  Anke Podhorsky; Peter Rehmann; Bernd Wöstmann
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities.

Authors:  M Zaruba; R Kasper; R Kazama; F J Wegehaupt; A Ender; T Attin; A Mehl
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features.

Authors:  Malchiodi Luciano; Zotti Francesca; Savoia Michela; Moro Tommaso; Albanese Massimo
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Randomized control trial of composite cuspal restorations: five-year results.

Authors:  W M Fennis; R H Kuijs; F J Roeters; N H Creugers; C M Kreulen
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 6.116

7.  Influence of preparation design and ceramic thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure modes of premolar partial coverage restorations.

Authors:  Petra C Guess; Stefan Schultheis; Martin Wolkewitz; Yu Zhang; Joerg R Strub
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.426

8.  In vitro fracture load of monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic molar crowns with different wall thicknesses.

Authors:  Bodo Seydler; Stefan Rues; Denise Müller; Marc Schmitter
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Load-bearing properties of minimal-invasive monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia occlusal onlays: finite element and theoretical analyses.

Authors:  Li Ma; Petra C Guess; Yu Zhang
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue.

Authors:  Petra C Guess; Thaleia Vagkopoulou; Yu Zhang; Martin Wolkewitz; Joerg R Strub
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.