Biomechanical Behavior of Class I and II Cavity Preparations for Amalgam and Composite Analyzed with the Finite Element Method
Background: Through time, some parameters for cavity design have been established theoretically but there is no biomechanical analysis that shows which one is the best alternative. Purpose: Identify through the finite element method the cavity design that offers a better distribution of efforts in c...
| Autor Principal: | Serrano Jaramillo, Claudia Liliana; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | D’Achiardi Zúñiga, Andrea Catalina; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Galvis Rodríguez, Eva María; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Luna Ángel, Luis Eduardo; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Moreno Abello, Gloria Cristina; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana |
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2009
|
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/revUnivOdontologica/article/view/655 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
Background: Through time, some parameters for cavity design have been established theoretically but there is no biomechanical analysis that shows which one is the best alternative. Purpose: Identify through the finite element method the cavity design that offers a better distribution of efforts in cavities class I and II for amalgam or composite. Method: A three dimensional model of the crown of a second superior premolar with cavities class I or II restored with amalgam or composite was realized, varying the direction of the cavity walls. A force of 291.36 N was applied in the five contact points and the distribution of efforts and its magnitude was observed. Results: For cavities class I, a better distribution of efforts was obtained when using divergent walls for restorations in amalgam and convergent for composite, while in cavities class II the opposed occurred. The concentration of efforts was greater with composite than with amalgam and it coincided with the dental contact points. It was also found a greater concentration of efforts in the restoration material than in the dental structure, for amalgam and for composite. Conclusions: From the biomechanical point of view, the cavity walls direction have influence in the distribution of efforts and its magnitudes in the tooth but do not seem to be a determining factor for the success or failure of the restoration considering the conditions included in this study. |
|---|