A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns. | LitMetric

Purpose: The current study aimed to compare modified Polyether-ether-ketone's fracture resistance and failure mode versus lithium disilicate glass-ceramic endocrowns.

Materials And Methods: A total of 16 butt-joint endocrown specimens on mandibular second molar teeth were fabricated and divided into two equivalent groups; Pressable modified Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) (BioHPP) and Pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max Press). A computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system was used to digitally create and milled wax patterns. Final restorations were cemented each to its corresponding prepared tooth. Thermomechanical cycling loading representing one year of clinical service was done in a chewing simulator. Fracture resistance was evaluated utilizing a universal testing machine. The failure mode was evaluated by inspecting fractured surfaces using a Stereomicroscope and further examined by a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) amongst both groups.

Results: A statistically significant variation in fracture resistance was recorded with a mean load of (2762.96 ± 216.15 N) for modified PEEK and (2175.91 ± 267.72 N) for lithium disilicate glass-ceramic endocrowns.

Conclusion: Modified PEEK endocrowns have higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate glass-ceramic endocrowns. Moreover, the likeliness of catastrophic fracture in molars receiving endodontic treatment restored by modified PEEK is less than teeth restored with lithium disilicate glass ceramics.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05232-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lithium disilicate
24
fracture resistance
20
disilicate glass-ceramic
12
modified peek
12
modified polyether-ether-ketone
8
versus lithium
8
failure mode
8
disilicate glass
8
fracture
6
modified
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!