Publication:
Temporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance

dc.contributor.authorSari, Tugrul
dc.contributor.authorUsumez, Aslihan
dc.contributor.authorStrasser, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorŞAHİNBAŞ, ABDURRAHMAN
dc.contributor.authorRosentritt, Martin
dc.contributor.institutionauthorŞAHİNBAŞ, ABDURRAHMAN
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-01T21:00:09Z
dc.date.available2020-09-01T21:00:09Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-01T00:00:00Z
dc.description.abstractObjective The aim of this investigation was to compare clinical performance and in vitro wear of temporary CAD/CAM and cartridge crowns. This study is an approach to estimate the influence of in vivo use and laboratory simulation on temporary crowns. Materials and methods A total of 90 crowns were fabricated from each temporary CAD/CAM or cartridge material. Also, 10 crowns of each material were clinically applied for 14 days, and 80 identical duplicate restorations were investigated in the laboratory after storage in water (14 days; 37 degrees C) and subsequent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML, 240.000 x 50N ML, 600 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). After in vivo application or in vitro aging, facture force, superficial wear (mean and maximum), surface roughness (Ra, Rz), thermal weight loss (TGA), and heat of reaction (DSC) were determined for all crowns. Statistics: Bonferroni post hoc test; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA);alpha = 0.05). Results The fracture resistance of the temporary materials varied between 1196.4 (CAD in vivo) and 1598.3 N (cartridge crown in vitro). Mean (maximum) wear data between 204.7 (386.7 mu m; cartridge in vitro) and 353.0 mu m (621.8 mu m; CAD in vitro) were found. Ra values ranged between 4.4 and 4.9 mu m and Rz values between 36.0 and 40.8 mu m. DSC and TG analysis revealed small differences between the materials but a strong influence of the aging process. Conclusions Comparison of in vivo and in vitro aging led to no significant differences in fracture force and wear but differences in roughness, DSC, and TGA. SEM evaluation confirmed comparability. Comparison of CAD/CAM and cartridge temporary materials partially showed significant differences.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00784-020-03278-5
dc.identifier.pubmed32583239
dc.identifier.scopus85087087632
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/18532
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000543003500002
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectTemporary materials
dc.subjectProvisional materials
dc.subjectIn vitro testing
dc.subjectIn vivo investigation
dc.subjectTCML
dc.subjectRoughness
dc.subjectWear
dc.subjectFracture force
dc.titleTemporary materials: comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.id6a5cd58b-8335-446a-bf50-d2ff3aa90e8f
local.indexed.atPubMed
local.indexed.atWOS
local.indexed.atScopus
local.publication.goal08 - İnsana Yakışır İş ve Ekonomik Büyüme
local.publication.isinternational1
relation.isAuthorOfPublication08d84f92-d112-4aea-a810-cf6b498d85f5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery08d84f92-d112-4aea-a810-cf6b498d85f5
relation.isGoalOfPublication42dc4679-bf07-41ff-b435-3ecfdcf74555
relation.isGoalOfPublication.latestForDiscovery42dc4679-bf07-41ff-b435-3ecfdcf74555

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Temporary materials comparison of in vivo and in vitro performance.pdf
Size:
2.01 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: