Fracture strength of various titanium-based, CAD-CAM and PFM implant crowns.
CAD-CAM
TiBase
abutment
cement-retained
implant restoration
screw-retained
Journal
Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]
ISSN: 1708-8240
Titre abrégé: J Esthet Restor Dent
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101096515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
21
08
2020
accepted:
28
09
2020
pubmed:
12
11
2020
medline:
22
5
2021
entrez:
11
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CAD-CAM has dramatically advanced dental restorative procedures to include implant-supported crowns. The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance following mechanical loading and thermocycling of various screw-retained and cement-retained ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate material combinations using the TiBase abutment compared to PFM implant-supported crowns. Twelve implant restorations were fabricated for each of eight groups. Three groups were screw-retained and five groups were cement-retained implant restorations. The ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate restorations were fabricated on the TiBase abutment while the PFM restorations were fabricated on an UCLA abutment. Data were analyzed with a one way Analysis of Variance and Tukey's post-hoc test to evaluate the effect of abutment and crown type on fracture load (alpha = 0.05). A significant difference was found in the maximum fracture load between groups (P < 0.001). The screw-retained implant restorations demonstrated higher fracture loads than their cement-retained counterparts. The TiBase abutment compared favorably to the UCLA abutment. The TiBase abutment is a titanium insert which combines the esthetics of a ceramic abutment with the mechanical properties of a titanium abutment and should be considered a viable clinical alternative to the conventional implant-supported PFM crown based on theses in vitro results and in context of in vivo studies. The lithium disilicate hybrid abutment/crown implant-supported restoration utilizing the TiBase abutment may be an ideal clinical choice due to simplicity, single appointment CAD-CAM, and esthetics.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Zirconium
C6V6S92N3C
Titanium
D1JT611TNE
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
522-530Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(5):946-954.
Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C, Wulfman C. Zirconia abutments in the anterior region: a systematic review of mechanical and esthetic outcomes. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:775-781.
Moilanen P, Hjerppe J, Lassila LV, Narhi TO. Fracture strength and precision of fit of implant-retained monolithic zirconia crowns. J Oral Implantol. 2018;XLIV(5):330-334.
Bidra AS, Rungruanganunt P. Clinical outcomes of implant abutments in the anterior region: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(3):159-176.
Conejo J, Kobayashi T, Anadioti E, Blatz MB. Performance of CAD/CAM monolithic ceramic implant-supported restorations bonded to titanium inserts: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(1):139-146.
Atsu SS, Aksan ME, Bulut AC. Fracture resistance of titanium, zirconia, and ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone implant abutments supporting CAD/CAM monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic crowns after aging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(3):622-630.
Elshiyab SH, Nawafleh N, Walsh L, George R. Fracture resistance and survival of implant-supported, zirconia-based hybrid-abutment crowns: influence of aging and crown structure. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9:1-8.
Roberts EE, Bailey CW, Ashcraft-Olmscheid DL, Vandewalle KS. Fracture resistance of titanium-based lithium disilicate and zirconia implant restorations. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:644-650.
Elsayed A, Wille S, Al-Akhali M, Kern M. Effect of fatigue loading on the fracture strength and failure mode of lithium disilicate and zirconia implant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:20-27.
Rosentritt M, Raab P, Hahnel S, Stöckle M, Preis V. In-vitro performance of CAD/CAM fabricated implant-supported temporary crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:2581-2587.
Joda T, Burki A, Bethge S, et al. Stiffness, strength, and failure modes of implant-supported monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: influence of titanium and zirconia abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:1272-1279.
Pjetursson BE, Zarauz C, Strasding M, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(18):160-183.
Sanz-Sanchez I, Sanz-Martin I, de Albornoz AC, et al. Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018(18):124-144.
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, et al. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(6):2-21.
Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Hicklin S, Brägger U. Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):356-364.
Spies BC, Pierall S, Vach K, Kohal RJ. CAD/CAM-fabricated ceramic implant-supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: final results of a 5-year prospective cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:876-883.
Fenner N, Hammerle CHF, Sailer I, Jung RE. Long-term clinical, technical, and esthetic outcomes of all-ceramic vs. titanium abutments on implant supporting single-tooth reconstructions after at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;00:1-8.
Hsu KW, Shen YF, Wei PC. Compatible CAD-CAM titanium abutments for posterior single-implant tooth replacement: a retrospective case series. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):363-366.
Hosseini M, Worsaae N, Schiodt M, Gotfredsen K. A 3-year prospective study of implant-supported, single-tooth restorations of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic materials in patients with tooth agenesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:1078-1087.
Dierens M, De Bruyn H, Kisch J, et al. Prosthetic survival and complication rate of single implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16-22 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(1):117-128.
Shi JY, Zhang XM, Qiao SC, Qian SJ, Mo JJ, Lai HC. Hardware complications and failure of three-unit zirconia-based and porcelain-fused-metal implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a retrospective cohort study with up to 8 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:571-575.
Wittneben JG, Millen C, Urs B. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions - a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:84-98.
Jung YG, Peterson IM, Kim DK, Lawn BR. Lifetime limiting strength degradation from contact fatigue in dental ceramics. J Dent Res. 2000;79:722-731.
Niem T, Youssef N, Wostmann B. Energy dissipation capacities of CAD-CAM restorative materials: a comparative evaluation of resilience and toughness. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:101-109.