2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Axial-wall inclination angle and vertical height interactions in molar full crown preparations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
23
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
3
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous in vitro studies revealed that the best marginal accuracies of zirconia copings produced by CAD/CAM systems occurred when the angles of the axial walls were prepared with a 12-degree axial taper 18,19) . Other studies have shown that the retention forces on abutments, especially for conventionally luted restorations, are signifi cantly higher when the axial walls are prepared such that they are nearly parallel to each other (convergence angles≤5°) 20,21) . An increased axial taper of the preparation will decrease the retention characteristics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous in vitro studies revealed that the best marginal accuracies of zirconia copings produced by CAD/CAM systems occurred when the angles of the axial walls were prepared with a 12-degree axial taper 18,19) . Other studies have shown that the retention forces on abutments, especially for conventionally luted restorations, are signifi cantly higher when the axial walls are prepared such that they are nearly parallel to each other (convergence angles≤5°) 20,21) . An increased axial taper of the preparation will decrease the retention characteristics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, they generally do not incorporate variations in axial wall height around the periphery of the margin. Instead, they are lim-ited to a single geometry with fixed axial wall height and focus on other crown design factors, including taper of the axial wall, [8][9][10] crown and/or core thickness, 11 margin configuration (e.g., chamfer vs. shoulder), 9,12,13 uniformity and thickness of cement space, 12,14 and other issues of clinical relevance. Thus, they provide little insight into the role the variations in axial wall height might play in stress distribution and fracture evolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinically, a crown would hardly undergo such great tensile efforts as those applied in this study, but the tested experimental conditions serve as parameters to evaluate different properties and behaviors of the materials used. 8,9 The results of the present study may be explained by the fact that higher preparation height promotes greater superficial area with the crown. Although other factors may influence on crown retention, the preparations were standardized (cervical diameter, taper, roughness, piece fit), thus eliminating or minimizing the interference of these variables on the results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%