| 000 | 03880cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032758.0 | ||
| 008 | 210802s2020 ua dh 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.2020.He.R | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aHebat Allah Mohammad Hassan Sayed | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aRetention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns Vs. zirconia crowns restoring molar teeth : _bAn in vitro study / _cHebat Allah Mohammad Hassan Sayed ; Supervised Hesham Alansary , Lamia Kheiralla |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aقوة الاستبقاء للتيجان المصنوعة من مادة (البولى ايثر ايثر كيتون) مقارنة بالتيجان المصنوعة من الزيركون لإستعاضة الضروس : _bدراسة معملية |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bHebat Allah Mohammad Hassan Sayed , _c2020 |
||
| 300 |
_a125 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine- Department of Prosthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aAim: This study was designed to evaluate the retention strength of monolithic CAD/CAM PEEK crowns versus that of CAD/CAM monolithic 5Y-TZP zirconia crowns, both resin-cemented to epoxy resin die abutments resembling lower molar tooth, after thermomechanical aging simulating 3 months of clinical service. Methodology: 22 identical epoxy dies, resembling the preparation of a lower second molar abutment for full-coverage crown (4 mm height, 6{u00B0} axial convergence and 1 mm-thick deep-chamfer finish line), were produced by replicating one master stainless steel die via 22 vinylpolysiloxane impressions. The 22 epoxy dies were randomly equally distributed into 2 groups, 11 dies each; control group 2Zr3 to receive CAD/CAM milled monolithic 5Y-TZP crowns (KATANA{u2122} Zirconia ML), and intervention group 2P3 to receive CAD/CAM milled monolithic PEEK crowns (breCAM.BioHPP{u2122}). Two opposing, laterally projecting arms (mesial and distal) were included in the design of all crowns for the retention test. The fitting surfaces of all crowns of both groups were sandblasted with 110-æm alumina particles.All of the crowns of both groups were cemented over their corresponding epoxy dies using the hand-mixed dual-cured, self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX{u2122} U200 Clicker{u2122} Dispenser) (3-kg seating force). Samples were stored in a water incubator (37 {u00B0}C) for 24 hours; then, subjected to mechanical aging (37,500 cycles, 49 N load) with simultaneous thermocycling (300 cycles, 5-55 {u00B0}C, 12 s dwell time).Retention strength was evaluated through the pull-off test performed via a universal testing machine (UTM), by vertically pulling-up the crowns from their dies along their vertical axes.The mean dislodgement force (retention strength) for each group was calculated, and statistically compared using Student t-test. Statistical analysis was performed with three-way ANOVA. Pair-wise comparison of groups was made with the Tukey test. Pearson{u2019}s Chi-Square test was used to analyze the failure modes. Results: PEEK crowns group (P) has demonstrated statistically insignificant higher retention strength (171.28 N ± 26.30) than zirconia (Zr) crowns group (150.40 N ± 24.40).2Mixed3 failure mode was the predominant in both groups, followed by 2cement on-crown3 failure mode.Though, the material had a significant effect on the percentage of occurrence of failure modes | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aPolyetheretherketone crowns | |
| 653 | 4 | _aRestoring molar teeth | |
| 653 | 4 | _aZirconia crowns | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aHesham Alansary , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aLamia Kheiralla , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c81584 _d81584 |
||