الفهرس 
Assessment of fracture resistance of enamic superstructure compared to porcelain fused to metal : An in vitro study
List of ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 130 |  |  |
| | | from | 130 | | |
Abstract
Aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of enamic superstructure compared to porcelain fused to metal superstructure under different loading protocols (axial and non axial). Twenty implant represent maxillary first premolar were embedded in clear autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The test group was divided into two main groups according to the superstructure type, group I: (n = 10) implants received cement retained hybrid ceramic (Enamic) superstructures and group II: (n = 10) implants received cement retained porcelain fused to metal (PFM) superstructures. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups according to the load direction, Subgroup (A): (n = 5) received axial load and Subgroup (B): (n = 5) received non axial load (loading at 45{u00B0}on palatal cusp). Samples were tested to failure by applying load using universal testing machine. Subsequently, the mode of failure of each specimen was identified and the bending moment was calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using two way ANOVA used and Independent t-test. Then one way ANOVA used followed by Tukyes post hoc test. Two way ANOVA showed that superstructure materials and different loading directions had a significant effect on mean fracture resistance (N) at p {u2264} 0.001. PFM superstructure under axial loading showed the highest statistically significant fracture resistance values (1326.36 ± 120.18N) while enamic superstructures under non axial loading showed the least statistically significant fracture resistance (478.67 ± 75.70N) among the tested groups. No significant difference between other three groups. All types of implant supported superstructures tested in this study have the potential to withstand physiological occlusal force in the premolar area 450N