Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Crown"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Effect of a Screw Access Channel on the Fracture Resistance of Cement-Retained Metal- Ceramic Implant Crowns
    (2018-05) McMillan, Dane
    Purpose: To determine if the presence of a screw-access channel results in a statistically significant difference in fracture strength of molar and premolar cemented metal-ceramic implant crowns. Materials and Methods: Twenty abutment-crown specimens were fabricated and tested in this study. Ten metal-ceramic premolar crowns and 10 metal-ceramic molar crowns were fabricated on their respective custom abutments. Of the 10 specimens in both the premolar and molar groups, five were fabricated as the experimental group with a screw access channel while the other five had their occlusal surface intact and served as the control group. Polytetrafluoroethylene tape was inserted in the screw access channel of the custom abutment for all specimens and the crowns were cemented using resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Following cementation, the screw access channels of the 10 specimens in the two experimental groups were filled with composite resin. Specimens were individually mounted onto a custom fixture with an implant analog and tested on a servohydraulic testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min at least 24 hours after cementation. Specimens were tested until failure with the highest force at the point of failure being recorded. Results: The mean axial load at failure for the molar crown without a screw access channel was 2032 N while the molar crown with an access channel was 1505 N. Comparatively, the mean axial load at failure for the premolar crown without a screw access channel was 1338 N while the premolar crown with an access channel was 964.5 N . Using a one-way ANOVA, the presence of a screw access channel in molar restorations led to a significant decrease in the axial load needed to fracture the restorations (P<.05); however, the screw access channel did not significantly affect the premolar restorations (P=.12). Molar restorations also required significantly more axial load to fracture relative to premolar restorations in specimens without a screw access channel (P<.01) and those with a screw access channel (P<.05). Conclusions: Metal-ceramic molar crowns, with or without a screw access channel, required a significantly higher axial load to fail than metal-ceramic premolar crowns. The presence of a screw access channel resulted in a significantly lower axial load force required for failure in the molar restorations; however, the difference was not statistically significant in the premolar restorations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    In vitro comparison of PFM crown retention following endodontic access and subsequent restoration: amalgam, composite, amalgam with composite veneer, and fiber post with composite
    (2014-08) Brezinsky, Scott Aaron, DDS.
    Introduction: An in vitro investigation of crown retention following endodontic access on molar porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns and subsequent restoration using amalgam, composite, amalgam + composite, or fiber post + composite.Methods: 40 human extracted molars were mounted in acrylic resin and prepared for PFM crowns. PFM crowns were fabricated, cemented with zinc phosphate, and the force to displace each crown was measured with a tensile-testing machine before and after endodontic access preparations. The endodontic access area, crown preparation axial wall, and preparation surface area was measured for each sample for comparison. The crowns were then recemented and access openings restored with either amalgam or composite before displacement force was remeasured. The restorative material was removed from each access opening, access area measured, and restored again (amalgam with composite or fiber post with composite) for displacement force to be re-measured. To compare for retention without a restored access opening, 13 randomly selected samples were removed of the restorative material, recemented and crowns again removed. Paired T test was used to compare the means of displacement between groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean outcome measure within the groups. Results: Statistical analyses showed retention following unfilled access was significantly lower than intact crowns. Amalgam, composite, amalgam + composite, and fiber post + composite increased retention beyond the original value. There was no statistical difference between amalgam and composite materials nor amalgam + composite from fiber post + composite. Qualitative results indicate that the restorative material remains in the crown following displacement regardless of the material used to restore the access. Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that an endodontic access cavity decreases retention of a PFM. However, subsequent restoration with amalgam, composite, amalgam + composite, or post + composite may increase the original retention of the crown.