2013
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2013-039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of proximal supportive design of zirconia framework on fracture load of veneering porcelain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Clinically, failure of an all-ceramic FPD usually involves chipping of the porcelainfacing material 20,22,28,29,34) , not chipping of the framework. In addition to the firing strength required to fuse the porcelain and the frame, deformation of the frame is also a cause of this chipping of the porcelain-facing material.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinically, failure of an all-ceramic FPD usually involves chipping of the porcelainfacing material 20,22,28,29,34) , not chipping of the framework. In addition to the firing strength required to fuse the porcelain and the frame, deformation of the frame is also a cause of this chipping of the porcelain-facing material.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinically, failure in FPDs with zirconia frames frequently results from fracture of the veneer porcelain and infrequently from fracture of the zirconia framework 3) . The framework design is a major factor affecting fracture in veneer porcelain 12) . Thus, a strong frame design is believed to reduce tensile stress on veneer porcelain.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In literature, there are many studies that have been done to compare modified and standard coping designs, but with different modifications of the framework and different failure testing methods. Modifications in framework design included collared designs (8,13,(31)(32)(33), anatomical cut back designs (5,19,34), and also included addition of ribs or horizontal embossments (35,36). Testing methods included single load to fracture (8,20,31), reliability and survival rate after fatigue testing (4,5,13,14), measuring the number and total area of chipping (37) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) (36).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%