الفهرس 
ResultsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 57 |  |  |
| | | from | 57 | | |
Abstract
Background: The increasing demand for enhanced aesthetics has led to the utilization of newly developed aesthetic materials for the fabrication of custom post and core restorations. Nonetheless, the fracture resistance of these materials has not been thoroughly investigated, thereby constraining their practical application as custom post and core restorations in clinical applications.
Aim of the study: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of three non-metallic esthetic post and core restorations and their modes of failure.
Materials and methods: Thirty-nine single-rooted human maxillary central incisors underwent endodontic treatment. A standardized 9mm post space preparation was performed on all teeth to accommodate custom-made post and core restorations. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=13) to receive restorations made from one of the following materials: glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN). An intraoral scanner was used to scan all teeth, including the post spaces. Post and core restorations were fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) techniques. The restorations were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement. Fracture resistance testing was conducted on all specimens using a universal testing machine, and failure mode analysis was performed with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were statistically analyzed using a One-Way ANOVA test, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels.
Results: Custom PEEK post and core restorations displayed the lowest statistically significant fracture load at 286.16 ± 67.09 N. In contrast, FRC exhibited the highest average fracture load at 452.60 ± 105.90 N, closely followed by PICN at 426.76 ± 77.99 N. In terms of failure modes, 46.2% of specimens with PICN were deemed non-restorable, while for PEEK and FRC, these percentages were 58.8% and 61.5%, respectively.
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, both FRC and PICN demonstrated good performance regarding fracture resistance, surpassing that of PEEK.
Keywords: Post and core, cad-cam, glass fiber-reinforced composite, polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network, polyetheretherketone.