Dört Farklý Restorasyon Materyali ile Üretilmiþ Onley ve Oklüzal Veneer Restorasyonlarýn Kýrýlma Dayanýmýnýn Ýncelenmesi

GÝRÝÞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalýþmanýn amacý, farklý restorasyon materyalleri olan cam seramik, hibrit seramik, hibrit kompozit ve kompozit rezin materyalleri kullanarak iki farklý preparasyon þekli ile hazýrlanmýþ restorasyonlarýnýn kýrýlma dayanýklýlýðý deðerlendirmektir.
YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Çalýþmamýzda 80 adet çekilmiþ homojen boyutlarda alt birinci molar diþ kullanýlarak ve diþler 10’ar diþten oluþan 8 ana gruba ayrýldý. Molar diþler üzerinde preperasyon dizayný iki farklý alt grup þeklinde, ilk grup oklüzal veneer, ikinci grup ise mezio-oklüzal-distal onley kavitesi þeklinde hazýrlandý. Restorasyonlar 4 ayrý materyal (IPS e.max CAD, Vita Enamic, SR Nexco Paste, Grandio Blocs) kullanýlarak CEREC InEos Blue (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) sistemi ile üretildi ve Variolink N siman (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) kullanýlarak simante edildi. Kýrma testi Shimadzu Universal Testing Kýrma Cihazý ile yapýlarak uygulanan kuvvet bilgisayar ortamýna aktarýldý. Verilerin istatistiksel deðerlendirilmesi için Oneway Anova testi ve farklýlýða neden olan gruplarýn tespitinde Tukey HDS testi kullanýldý.
BULGULAR: Kýrýlma dayanýklýlýðý açýsýndan gruplar arasýnda istatistiksel olarak anlamlý farklýlýk bulunmaktadýr (p>0.05). Nexco Paste ve Vita Enamic materyallerinden üretilen onley restorasyonlarýnýn kýrýlma dayanýklýlýðý deðerleri diðer gruplara oranla istatistiksel olarak anlamlý derecede daha düþük bulundu.
TARTIÞMA ve SONUÇ: Çalýþmanýn sonucunda, farklý iki kavite dizayný ve dört restoratif materyalin posterior bölge vakalarýnda klinik olarak kullanýma uygun olduðu saptanmýþtýr.

Examination of the Fracture Resistance of Onlay and Occlusal Veneer Restorations Fabricated with Four Different Restoration Materials

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fracture resistance of onlay restorations prepared with two different preparations using glass ceramic, hybrid ceramic, hybrid composite and composite resin materials.
METHODS: 80 extracted homogeneously sized lower molars were used and categorized into eight main categories of ten teeth each. The preparation design on the molar teeth was made in two different subgroups, the first group was prepared as an occlusal veneer and the second group was prepared as a mesio-occlusal-distal onlay. Restorations were produced with the CEREC InEos Blue (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) system using 4 different restoration materials (IPS e.max CAD, Vita Enamic, SR Nexco Paste, Grandio Blocs). The restorations were cemented using Variolink N cement (Ivoclar Vivadent AG). The fracture test was performed with the Shimadzu Universal Testing Device and the applied force was transferred to the computer for numerical analysis. The Oneway Anova test and Tukey HDS test were used to identify the groups that caused the difference.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of fracture resistance (p>0.05). The fracture resistance values of onlay restorations produced by Nexco Paste and Vita Enamic materials were found statistically significantly lower than the other groups.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The study concluded that two alternative preparation designs and four restorative materials are appropriate for clinical use in posterior area.