论文部分内容阅读
目的 比较动态负荷下螺钉固位与粘固固位种植单冠修复体的固位与机械力学特性。方法 将粘固固位和螺钉固位单冠修复体标本固定在 2 2 7kg的压力感受器上 ,通过计算机控制 ,在15kg循环负荷下进行疲劳实验。比较实验前、后单冠修复体的松动度 ,观察 2组标本经受疲劳实验后的失败模式。结果 螺钉固位组与粘固固位组单冠平均初始动度值分别为 3 6 2± 1 0 0、3 6 1±1 31,差异无显著性。螺钉固位组与粘固固位组单冠平均负荷次数分别为 (2 16± 1 2 8)M(百万次 )、(2 6 0± 2 2 8)M ,差异无显著性。两组的机械失败方式不同。结论 粘固固位和螺钉固位均能为修复体提供足够的固位力。两种固位方式因界面连接不同 ,导致机械失败的方式也不同。
Objective To compare the retention and mechanical properties of single-crown prostheses with screw-on and cement-retention under dynamic loading. Methods The specimens of cement-fixed and screw-retained single crown prostheses were fixed on 227 kg baroreceptors and were subjected to computer-controlled fatigue test under a cyclic loading of 15 kg. The degree of loosening of the single-crown prostheses before and after the operation was compared, and the failure mode of the two groups of specimens after the fatigue test was observed. Results The average initial dynamic single screw crown screw fixation group and cement fixation group were 362 ± 1 0 3 6 1 ± 1 31, the difference was not significant. The average number of single crowns in the screw retention group and the cement retention group were (2 16 ± 1 2 8) M (million times) and (26 0 ± 2 2 8) M, respectively, with no significant difference. Two groups of mechanical failure in different ways. Conclusion Both cementing and screwholding can provide enough retention for the prosthesis. Two kinds of retention methods due to different interface connections, resulting in mechanical failure in different ways.