The milled suprastructures were bonded to zirconia frameworks using a resin composite in Group OCF and photopolymerized. Crowns were cemented to the metal dies with resin modified glass-ionomer cement. All specimens were stored at 37°C, 100% humidity for 48 hours prior to mechanical tests. Data were statistically analyzed (ANOVA, Bonferroni tests, α = 0.05). Fractured specimens

were examined under MI-503 mouse scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and FEA modeling of the crowns was performed. Mean FR values (N) were significantly higher with L (6102 ± 1519) and P (4117 ± 1083) than with of OCF (1900 ± 254) (p = 0.01). The mean SBS (MPa) in OCF (24 ± 4) was significantly lower (p < 0.002) than L (35 ± 6) and P (32

± 6) (p > 0.05). For crown restorations, while only adhesive failures were found in OCF, cohesive failures within veneering ceramic were more frequent in P and L. FEA verified these findings. Veneering methods based on layering or pressing may reduce ceramic chipping check details but the overcemented file-splitting method does not seem to prevent this failure. Layering and overpressing veneering methods on zirconia frameworks with reduced design might decrease chipping compared to overcemented file-splitting, where in the latter, zirconia framework and feldspathic suprastructure are combined using a resin cement. “
“Traditionally, patients with maxillofacial 上海皓元 defects have been challenging to treat. A multitude of challenges associated with maxillofacial prosthetic treatment are not typically seen with patients who need conventional prosthodontic treatment. These types of patients generally require replacement of significant amounts of hard and soft tissues than do conventional

prosthodontic patients. Most maxillofacial patients also warrant more emotional support than do conventional prosthodontic patients. Successful maxillofacial prosthetics still need to embrace the traditional goals of prosthodontic treatment: stability, support, retention, and esthetics. It is unlikely that a maxillofacial prosthesis will exactly duplicate the anatomy and function of missing or damaged structures. Although craniofacial implants (CFI’s) have lower cumulative survival rates (CSR’s) than intraoral endosseous implants, osseointegrated CFI’s have proven to be significant adjuncts to improving retention of maxillofacial prostheses. However, CSR’s of CFI’s have been reported to be lower than CSR’s for intraoral endosseous implants. Lately, computer-assisted design and computer-assisted machining (CAD/CAM) has been used in dentistry to facilitate fabrication of implant-supported frameworks. CAD/CAM protocols have numerous advantages over conventional casting techniques, including improved accuracy and biocompatibility, and decreased costs.