| Title |
Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-016-1777-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Taufall, Marlis Eichberger, Patrick R. Schmidlin, Bogna Stawarczyk |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to investigate the fracture load of different veneered PEEK 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) after different aging regimens. Congruently anatomically shaped 3-unit FDPs were milled using a master stl-data set and randomly divided into four groups (N = 120, n = 30 per veneering group), which were veneered using different veneering methods: (i) digital veneering with breCAM.HIPC, (ii) conventional veneering with crea.lign, (iii) conventional with crea.lign paste, and (iv) using pre-manufactured veneers visio.lign. The FDPs were then adhesively cemented on a metal abutment and fracture loads were measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) before and after aging (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 °C). Two- and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Scheffé tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). This investigation showed an influence of the veneering method on the fracture load results independent of the aging level. The highest fracture load was measured for the FDPs with digital veneering (1882 ± 152 N at baseline, 2021 ± 184 N after thermocycling). The remaining groups showed comparable results, and no impact of thermal aging was observed. Digital and conventional veneers showed cracks in the pontic region starting from the connector area as a main failure type after loading, while the pre-manufactured veneers showed predominantly adhesive failures. The digital veneering method showed the highest fracture load resistance. Thermal aging showed no impact on the fracture load of all tested veneered PEEK 3-unit FDPs. According to this study results, reliable veneering of PEEK FDPs can be achieved with digital veneering. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 122 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 43 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 64 | 52% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#1,019
of 1,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,212
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#37
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.