English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study evaluated fracture load of single-tooth, implant-supported, zirconia-based, porcelain- and indirect composite-layered restorations after artificial aging. Forty-four zirconia-based molar restorations were fabricated on implant abutments and divided into four groups, namely, zirconia-based all-ceramic restorations (ZAC group) and three types of zirconia-based composite-layered restorations (ZIC-P, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups). Before layering an indirect composite material, the zirconia copings in the ZIC-P and ZIC-E groups were primed with Clearfil Photo Bond and Estenia Opaque Primer, respectively. All restorations were cemented on the abutments with glass-ionomer cement and then subjected to thermal cycling and cyclic loading. All specimens survived thermal cycling and cyclic loading. The fracture load of the ZIC-P group (2.72 kN) was not significantly different from that of the ZAC group (3.05 kN). The fracture load of the zirconia-based composite-layered restoration primed with Clearfil Photo Bond (ZIC-P) was comparable to that of the zirconia-based all-ceramic restoration (ZAC) after artificial aging.

In vitro comparison of fracture load of implant-supported, zirconia-based, porcelain- and composite-layered restorations after artificial aging