Effect of framework type on survival probability of implant-supported temporary crowns: An
Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
12
09
2019
accepted:
27
01
2020
entrez:
9
6
2020
pubmed:
9
6
2020
medline:
9
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This Thirty (30) external hexagon implants (3.75 x 10 mm) were embedded in acrylic resin following the ISO-14801. Standardized temporary crowns (n=10, N=30) were manufactured in acrylic resin and divided according to the framework type: Total plastic, Plastic with CoCr base and Titanium. The crowns were installed onto the implants (20N.cm) and fatigued (100N, 2 Hz) to determine the crowns' survival probability for missions of 300.000 and 600.000 cycles. Fatigue data were submitted to the Kaplan-Meier test followed by Wilcoxon and Log Rank, all with α = 5%. The implant platforms were parametrically inspected based on the scanning before and after the fatigue to evaluate the damage. The strain values were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Tukey test, all with α = 5%. ANOVA revealed that the Total plastic showed less implant damage (-0.07 ± -0.03 mm) than the Plastic with CoCr base (-0.08 ± -0.04 mm) and the Titanium (-0.10 ± -0.01 mm) frameworks. Therefore, the framework type to manufacture implant-supported temporary crowns influences the fatigue survival of the restoration and the implant platform damage. The Plastic with CoCr base and Titanium frameworks showed superior reliability than the Total plastic framework which could not survive 600,000 cycles. The Plastic with CoCr base and the Titanium framework are suitable for restorations over 3 months in use, without a difference in the implant platform damage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Thirty (30) external hexagon implants (3.75 x 10 mm) were embedded in acrylic resin following the ISO-14801. Standardized temporary crowns (n=10, N=30) were manufactured in acrylic resin and divided according to the framework type: Total plastic, Plastic with CoCr base and Titanium. The crowns were installed onto the implants (20N.cm) and fatigued (100N, 2 Hz) to determine the crowns' survival probability for missions of 300.000 and 600.000 cycles. Fatigue data were submitted to the Kaplan-Meier test followed by Wilcoxon and Log Rank, all with α = 5%. The implant platforms were parametrically inspected based on the scanning before and after the fatigue to evaluate the damage. The strain values were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Tukey test, all with α = 5%.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ANOVA revealed that the Total plastic showed less implant damage (-0.07 ± -0.03 mm) than the Plastic with CoCr base (-0.08 ± -0.04 mm) and the Titanium (-0.10 ± -0.01 mm) frameworks. Therefore, the framework type to manufacture implant-supported temporary crowns influences the fatigue survival of the restoration and the implant platform damage. The Plastic with CoCr base and Titanium frameworks showed superior reliability than the Total plastic framework which could not survive 600,000 cycles.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Plastic with CoCr base and the Titanium framework are suitable for restorations over 3 months in use, without a difference in the implant platform damage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32509224
doi: 10.4317/jced.56292
pii: 56292
pmc: PMC7263782
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e433-e439Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Medicina Oral S.L.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest None declared.
Références
Braz Dent J. 2019 Mar-Apr;30(2):157-163
pubmed: 30970059
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Mar;85(3):268-75
pubmed: 11264934
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2012 Oct;28(10):559-63
pubmed: 23089323
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 Jan/Feb;40(1):e9-e18
pubmed: 31815975
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Mar/Apr;39(2):213-218
pubmed: 30794257
Braz Dent J. 2019 Oct 07;30(5):505-510
pubmed: 31596335
Eur J Oral Sci. 2009 Apr;117(2):194-9
pubmed: 19320730
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 May;31(3):209-212
pubmed: 30859736
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Novermber/Dec;33(6):1199-1205
pubmed: 30427949
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Aug;26(8):964-982
pubmed: 24917174
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Dec;66(6):796-8
pubmed: 1805033
J Am Dent Assoc. 1971 Jan;82(1):160-3
pubmed: 5274164
Implant Dent. 2017 Feb;26(1):30-36
pubmed: 27902498
Implant Dent. 2009 Aug;18(4):326-33
pubmed: 19667821
J Dent. 2012 Feb;40(2):154-62
pubmed: 22197634
J Prosthodont. 2016 Aug;25(6):459-65
pubmed: 26465960
Dent Mater. 2012 Sep;28(9):e168-77
pubmed: 22776556
Contemp Clin Dent. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):395-399
pubmed: 29042724
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019 May 30;27(2):76-82
pubmed: 31046208
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Feb;115(2):230-7
pubmed: 26548885
Implant Dent. 2006 Sep;15(3):236-40
pubmed: 16966896
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Dec;74(12):2385-2392
pubmed: 27475245
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020 Feb 27;28(1):10-17
pubmed: 31638348
Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jul-Dec;6(2):252-5
pubmed: 27390509
Braz Dent J. 2015 Oct;26(5):468-73
pubmed: 26647930
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Jun;19(3):549-558
pubmed: 28217883
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9(3):233-247
pubmed: 27722222