000			03166cam a2200313 a 4500
003			EG-GiCUC
008			170214s2016 ua o f m 000 0 eng d
040			_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC
041	0		_aeng
049			_aDeposite
097			_aM.Sc
099			_aCai01.09.09.M.Sc.2016.Ma.A
100	0		_aMarwa Nour Eldien Mahmoud Ali
245	1	0	_aAssessment of fracture resistance of enamic superstructure compared to porcelain fused to metal : _bAn in vitro study / _cMarwa Nour Eldien Mahmoud Ali ; Supervised Rabab Mohammed Ibrahim , Hanaa Ibrahem sallam
246	1	5	_aتقييم مقاومة الكسر لتعويضات الزراعة المصىعة من الإيىاميك مقارنة بالتعويضات السيراميكية المغِلفة للمعدن : _bدراسة معملية
260			_aCairo : _bMarwa Nour Eldien Mahmoud Ali , _c2016
300			_a118 P. : _bphotographs ; _c25cm
502			_aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics
520			_aAim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of enamic superstructure compared to porcelain fused to metal superstructure under different loading protocols (axial and non axial). Twenty implant represent maxillary first premolar were embedded in clear autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The test group was divided into two main groups according to the superstructure type, Group I: (n = 10) implants received cement retained hybrid ceramic (Enamic) superstructures and Group II: (n = 10) implants received cement retained porcelain fused to metal (PFM) superstructures. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups according to the load direction, Subgroup (A): (n = 5) received axial load and Subgroup (B): (n = 5) received non axial load (loading at 45{u00B0}on palatal cusp). Samples were tested to failure by applying load using universal testing machine. Subsequently, the mode of failure of each specimen was identified and the bending moment was calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using two way ANOVA used and Independent t-test. Then one way ANOVA used followed by Tukyes post hoc test. Two way ANOVA showed that superstructure materials and different loading directions had a significant effect on mean fracture resistance (N) at p {u2264} 0.001. PFM superstructure under axial loading showed the highest statistically significant fracture resistance values (1326.36 ± 120.18N) while enamic superstructures under non axial loading showed the least statistically significant fracture resistance (478.67 ± 75.70N) among the tested groups. No significant difference between other three groups. All types of implant supported superstructures tested in this study have the potential to withstand physiological occlusal force in the premolar area 450N
530			_aIssued also as CD
653		4	_aEnamic superstructure compared
653		4	_aFracture resistance
653		4	_aPorcelain fused
700	0		_aHanaa Ibrahem sallam , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aRabab Mohammed Ibrahim , _eSupervisor
905			_aNazla _eRevisor
905			_aSamia _eCataloger
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c59824 _d59824