不同厚度及材料对嵌体抗折裂强度的影响及三维有限元分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的研究不同材料及牙合面厚度对嵌体抗折裂强度及应力分布的影响，为临床利用提供实验基础及支持。方法选用右下第一磨牙标准近中邻牙合面洞嵌体预备体，扫描得到数字化模型，软件调整嵌体厚度，3D打印金属代型；嵌体材料选用IPS e.max和Vita enamic。粘结后对嵌体进行抗折裂强度试验。选取成人健康右下第一磨牙CBCT数据，进行数字化模型模拟，分析不同材料及牙合面厚度时剩余牙体硬组织的应力分布。结果不同厚度的IPS e.max嵌体抗折裂强度存在差异（P<0.05），2.0 mm时最大；Vita enamic组也存在差异（P<0.05），2.5 mm时最大。嵌体厚度同为2.0 mm时，IPS e.max的抗折裂强度优于Vita enamic（P<0.05）。应力分布分析中，相同厚度下，嵌体等效应力IPS e.max组均大于Vita enamic组。剩余牙釉质的等效应力，IPS e.max组低于健康牙齿；Vita enamic组厚度为2.0、2.5 mm时则有所增加。嵌体修复后剩余牙本质的等效应力峰值均大于完整牙齿，但随着厚度的增加，峰值在减小。结论 IPS e.max嵌体厚度为2.0 mm时，抗折裂强度最大。IPS e.max嵌体的抗折裂强度比Vita enamic更大，并且承担了更多的应力，更有利于剩余牙体硬组织的保存。

关键词: 关键词：嵌体, 抗折裂强度, 厚度, 材料, 三维有限元分析

Abstract: Objective To study the influence of different thicknesses and materials on the fracture resistance of inlays and the change of stress distribution, to provide experimental basis and support for restoration with inlays in clinic. Methods The standard preparation of inlay of the right lower first molar was selected, and the model was obtained by scanning. The thickness of the inlay was adjusted by software, and the metal dies were made by 3D printing. IPS e.max and Vita enamic were selected as inlay materials. Fracture resistance was tested on the inlays after bonding. CBCT data of lower right first molars of a healthy adultwas selected to carry out the digital model simulation. The stress distribution of inlay and remaining teeth with different thicknesses and materials were observed and analyzed. Results There were differences in fracture resistance among IPS e.max groups (P<0.05), and the largest fracture resistance was at 2.0 mm. There were differences among Vita enamic groups (P<0.05), and the largest fracture resistance was at 2.5mm. IPS e.max had higher fracture resistance (P<0.05) when the inlay thickness was 2.0 mm. In three-dimensional finite element analysis, the equivalent stress of IPS e.max inlays was larger than Vita enamic under the same thickness. The equivalent stress of residual enamel in IPS e.max group was lower than that of healthy teeth, while in Vita enamic group, the equivalent stress of residual enamel increased when the thickness was 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm. The peak equivalent stress of dentin restored with both materials was larger than that of intact dentin, but the peak equivalent stress of residual dentin decreased with the increase of thickness. Conclusion IPS e.max inlay with 2.0 mm has the largest fracture resistance. The fracture strength of IPS e.max is larger than that of Vita enamic and bears more stress than Vita enamic, which is more conducive to the preservation of the remaining tooth hard tissue.

Key words: Key words: Inlay, Fracture resistance, Thickness, Material, Three-dimensional finite element analysis

中图分类号:

R783.1

李施园孙志达梁佳瑜刘梅. 不同厚度及材料对嵌体抗折裂强度的影响及三维有限元分析[J]. , 2019, 39(12): 1073-1077.

参考文献 1.

李秋桐. 不同材料嵌体修复后牙牙体缺损疗效比较[J].中国现代医药杂志,2017(4).2.刘琰辉, 樊永杰, 缪羽, et al. CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体与复合树脂嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类洞的临床疗效比较[J]. 中国急救医学, 2015, 35(s2):105-106.3.Chen C , Trindade, Flávia Zardo, De Jager N , et al. The fracture resistance of a CAD/CAM Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC) and a CAD ceramic at different thicknesses[J]. Dental Materials, 2014, 30(9):954-962.4.Guess P C , Schultheis S , Wolkewitz M , et al. Influence of preparation design and ceramic thicknesses on fracture resistance and failure modes of premolar partial coverage restorations.[J]. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2013,110(4):264-273.5.李红文, 曾宪涛, 姚馨蕙, et al. 不同材料进行磨牙Ⅱ类洞嵌体修复的研究[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志,2017(9).6.来海良. 金属嵌体修复磨牙邻牙合面洞的疗效[J]. 口腔材料器械杂志, 2003, 12(3):162-162.7.陈亚明. 间接性树脂嵌体新进展[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2009, 2(1):29-32.8.Al-Makramani BMA, Razak AAA, Abu-Hassan MI. Evaluation of load at fracture of Procera AllCeram copings using different luting cements. Journal of Prosthodontics: Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists 2008;17:120–49.Saridag S , Sevimay M , Pekkan G . Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored With All-ceramic Inlays and On lays: An In Vitro Study[J]. Operative Dentistry, 2013, 38(6).10.Xiaoping L , Dongfeng R , Silikas N . Effect of etching time and resin bond on the flexural strength of IPS e.max Press glass ceramic[J]. Dental Materials, 2014, 30(12):e330-e336.11.Sonmez N , Gultekin P , Turp V , et al. Evaluation of five CAD/CAM materials by microstructural characterization and mechanical tests: a comparative in vitro study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2018, 18(1):5.12.Pop-Ciutrila I S , Dudea D , Eugenia Badea M , et al. Shade Correspondence, Color, and Translucency Differences between Human Dentine and a CAD/CAM Hybrid Ceramic System[J]. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2016, 28:S46-S55.13.Ona M , Watanabe C , Igarashi Y , et al. Influence of Preparation Design on Failure Risks of Ceramic Inlays: A Finite Element Analysis[J]. The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2010, 13(4):367-373.14.Holberg C , Rudzkijanson I , Wichelhaus A , et al. Ceramic inlays: Is the inlay thickness an important factor influencing the fracture risk?[J]. Journal of Dentistry, 2013, 41(7):628-635.15.冯娟. 全覆盖式高嵌体修复根管治疗后下颌第一磨牙的三维有限元分析[D]. 2017.16.Fariborz Vafaee, Farnaz Firooz,Bijan Heidari, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Flexural Strength of 2 Nanoceramic Composite Resin CAD/CAM Blocks (Lava Ultimate and Vita Enamic) and a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic (IPS e.max CAD).[J].Scholars Journal of Dental Sciences 2016; 3(7):210-21417. Shafter M*, Jain V, Wicks R and Nathanson D .Effect of Thermocycling on Flexural Strength of Different CAD/CAM Material[J].Journal of Dentistry & Oral Disorders,Volume 3 Issue 5 - 201718. Awada A , Nathanson D . Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials[J]. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2015, 114(4):S0022391315002553.19.大面积缺损的下颌第一前磨牙桩核冠与高嵌体修复的三维有限元分析[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 2018, v.28；No.243(5):21-25.20.Beier U S , Kapferer I , Dumfahrt H . Clinical long-term evaluation and failure characteristics of 1,335 all-ceramic restorations[J]. The International journal of prosthodontics, 2012, 25(1):70-78.

[1]	屠美洁宿凌恺何福明邓淑丽. 新型快速硬固型根尖倒充填材料的研究进展[J]. , 2020, 40(1): 87-91.
[2]	乔爱红王晓峰. 正畸用无金属透明弓丝的最新研究进展[J]. , 2019, 39(6): 565-568.
[3]	林惠欢唐亮. 椅旁CAD/CAM技术在口腔修复中的应用[J]. , 2019, 39(3): 275-279.
[4]	刘璐黄天意史金先王晓容. 聚乳酸-羟基乙酸在骨组织工程支架材料中的应用[J]. , 2019, 39(2): 167-170.
[5]	喻望清孙宇张兆钰肖睿焦二龙张雪崔丹. 高熵合金AlFeCoCuTiNbx的体外血液相容性评价[J]. , 2019, 39(11): 998-1002.
[6]	李筱媛葛少华. 支架材料的免疫反应对骨组织再生的影响[J]. , 2018, 38(9): 834-838.
[7]	范雅丹葛琳华束蓉. 中国汉族成人后牙区硬腭黏膜厚度测量及各组织学层次分布规律研究[J]. , 2018, 38(9): 795-799.
[8]	程燚章非敏. 复合水凝胶支架在骨组织工程中的应用[J]. , 2018, 38(6): 563-568.
[9]	邢斌. 托槽转矩对上颌前牙整体内收影响的三维有限元分析[J]. , 2018, 38(5): 440-444.
[10]	郭欣王柳力廖国婷魏天骄冯剑桥. 不同液体浸泡对硅橡胶软衬拉伸强度的影响[J]. , 2018, 38(4): 310-313.
[11]	董佳增何建明周峰郑闱颖王辉. 同种骨植入材料应用于颌骨缺损的临床效果观察[J]. , 2018, 38(11): 1007-1010.
[12]	李虎虓宋忠臣. 含硅磷酸钙类骨水泥研究进展[J]. , 2018, 38(10): 942-946.
[13]	张雪孙宇张兆钰崔丹喻望清焦二龙肖睿. 常用可摘局部义齿支架材料表面微生物粘附的实验研究[J]. , 2018, 38(1): 19-22.
[14]	赵小琦周琦琪韩祥祯宋艳艳向晓松何惠宇. 鹿角粉复合支架与纳米级羟基磷灰石复合支架的性能比较[J]. , 2017, 37(9): 791-795.
[15]	赵宇骁周延浦丽飞陈洁丁旭宋晓萌滕荣林吴煜农. 上颌中切牙牙龈生物型的相关因素分析[J]. , 2017, 37(7): 615-620.