الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 82 |  |  |
| | | from | 82 | | |
Abstract
Zirconia inlay-retained fixed partial dentures were made utilizing two different cavity designs—tub shape and box shape—to evaluate their marginal fit and fracture resistance.
It all came out to twenty IRFPDs, or inlay retained fixed partial dentures. Out of a total of ten samples, two groups were established based on the cavity design. A box-shaped design was part of group 1, while a tube-shaped pattern was part of group 2. Then, Subgroup A was used to assess fracture resistance, while Subgroup B was used to assess marginal fit; a total of five people were split between the two groups.
The four teeth that were selected for ultrasonic cleaning were two mandibular second premolars and two mandibular second molars. After that, to make it look like there was a space between the teeth, they were placed in an epoxy resin block with a 10 mm gap between the abutments. Following this, the teeth were prepared according to the standard procedures for inlay preparation using one of two cavity preparation designs: the box form or the tub form.
The CAD/CAM procedure was used to construct all of the IRFPDS. Afterwards, the Biscem cementing procedure was executed according to the manufacturer’s instructions to a tee.
A 5 kN load cell was used in the computer-controlled materials testing apparatus to assess the fracture resistance.
A USB digital microscope with an integrated camera was used to get the marginal fit measurements. A computer that was compatible with IBM was connected to this microscope. All of the measurements were taken using a 30X fixed magnification.
The results of the fracture resistance test showed that the two designs were significantly different. In comparison to the tub shape design, which had an average value of 1976±20.1, the box shape design had a much higher mean value of 2217.1±87.9.
When it came to premolar teeth, there was no discernible difference between the two designs according to the marginal fit analysis. In comparison to the box shape design (60.4±4.9), the analysis indicated that the tub shape design (59±4.5) offered better value. The results also showed that when comparing the two designs for molar teeth, there was no discernible difference. The research demonstrated that, in comparison to the box shape design (60.4±4.9), the tub shape design (59±4.5) offered more value.