| 000 | 02614cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032817.0 | ||
| 008 | 210916s2021 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.2021.Ma.F | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aMahmoud Showky Mohammed Ahmed | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aFracture resistance under cyclic loading of lithium disilicate vonlays versus rosetta vonlays restoring premolars : _bIn vitro study / _cMahmoud Showky Mohammed Ahmed ; Supervised Rasha Nabil Sami , Noha Adel Elkhodary |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aمقاومة الكسر للقشور السطحية الخزفيةالمرممة للضواحك تحت تحميل دورى والمصنعة من الليثيوم ديسليكات مقابل القشور السطحية الخزفية المصنعة من الروزيتا : _bدراسة معملية |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bMahmoud Showky Mohammed Ahmed , _c2021 |
||
| 300 |
_a106 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aAim: The aim of thiscurrent study was to compare the fracture resistance under cyclic loading of lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) vonlays versus (Rosetta®SM CAD)vonlays restoring premolars. Methodology: A natural maxillary premolar tooth was prepared according to regular dimensions of all ceramic restorations preparation guidelines, the prepared naturalpremolar tooth was then duplicated into twenty epoxy resin dies, each die was scanned by Medit i500 scanner extra oral scanner and then milled by Sirona MCX5 milling machine usingIPS e.max CAD blocks and Rosetta®SM CADblocks. A total sample size of 20 will be selected then divided into two equal groups 10 sample each according to the material type used, group (A)ten vonlay samples (n=10) fabricated ofIPS e.max CAD blocks, group (B) ten vonlays samples (n=10) fabricated of Rosetta®SM CAD /CAM blocks. Load to fracture was tested. Result: IPS e.max CAD group recorded statistically non-significant higher fracture resistance mean value (502.39 ±102.89 N) than Rosettagroup (468.76 ± 67.54 N) as described by unpaired t-test (P=0.5006 > 0.05 | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aFracture strength | |
| 653 | 4 | _aOnlay | |
| 653 | 4 | _aVeneer | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aNoha Adel Elkhodary , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aRasha Nabil Sami , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c82194 _d82194 |
||