|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 81, No. 9,
623-627 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100909
Influence of Connector Design on Fracture Probability of Ceramic Fixed-partial Dentures
W. Oh1,*,
N. Götzen2 and
K.J. Anusavice3
1 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Health Science Tower, PO Box 100435, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0435, USA;
2 Biomechanics Section, Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, Germany; and
3 Department of Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, USA;
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of axial compressive loading at center of pontic through steel bearing (14.3 mm in diameter) and radius of curvature (r) at embrasure area of three-unit FPDs.
|
|
View larger version (123K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Finite element model (FEM) and scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images: (A) cross-sectional view of longitudinally sectioned 3-D FEM Model II, (B) SEM image of a typical fracture surface of a failed ceramic specimen, (C) SEM image of a flaw origin (indicated by white arrows) and adjacent multiple pores (indicated by black arrows) at the gingival embrasure, and (D) contour plot of the risk-of-rupture intensity (RRI) for FPD Model II at a failure load of 740 N. Peak intensity site at the gingival embrasure is slightly shifted toward the pontic. The gingival embrasure, pontic, and abutment crown are denoted as GE, P, and A, respectively.
|
|
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
|
