|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Erratum
for
Fischer et al., J DENT RES 82 (3) 238-242.
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 82, No. 5,
406 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200516
ERRATUM
View larger version (98K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Finite element model with all-ceramic bridge design used for this study. To limit the computer process time, we assumed the bridge to be symmetrical with respect to the bridge abutments. Therefore, the calculations were performed on a half of the bridge model. Three different designs were chosen for the connector areas between the abutments and the pontic. The dimensions (x-, y-, z-directions) were: (a) 0.1 x 3.5 x 4.0 mm (basis model), (b) 0.1 x 2.5 x 3.5 mm, and (c) 0.5 x 3.5 x 4.0 mm.
|
|
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Stress distribution in a posterior bridge (basis model) made of Empress 2 at a load of 600 N. (a) View from the bottom onto the half-bridge model. The ‘root’ FE elements are removed for clarity. (b) View is oblique from the front onto the connector area of the pontic component. The ‘root’ FE elements and the bridge abutment are removed for clarity. The maximum principal stress ( 1 = 85 MPa, see arrows) occurs on the lower side of the area connecting the bridge abutment and the pontic (white).
|
|
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Failure probabilities F after 1, 5, and 10 yrs of the modeled Empress 1, Empress 2, In-Ceram, and ZrO2 all-ceramic bridges after a continuous, static load of 100 N.
|
|
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
|
