Objective The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance, fracture resistance and mode of failure of posterior hybrid‐abutment‐crown vs. hybrid‐abutment with separate crown, both bonded to short titanium bases. Materials and Methods Thirty‐two titanium implants were embedded perpendicularly in auto‐polymerizing resin. Implant‐supported restorations simulating a maxillary first premolar were designed and milled using a CAD/CAM system and divided into 2 groups according to material (n = 16): zirconia (Z) and lithium disilicate (L). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to design (n = 8): hybrid‐abutment‐crown (ZS, LS) and hybrid‐abutment with separate crown (ZC, LC). Each group was subjected to 1.2 million cycles of thermo‐mechanical fatigue loading in a dual‐axis chewing simulator at 120 N load. Surviving specimens were subjected to quasi‐static loading in a universal testing machine. Mode of failure was determined under a low magnification optical microscope. Results During chewing simulation, 18.8% of zirconia and 43.8% of lithium disilicate restorations failed. The fracture resistance median values ranged from 3,730 N for group ZC, 3,400 N for group ZS, 1,295 N for group LS to 849 N for group LC. Group ZC had a statistically significant higher fracture resistance than groups LC and LS; however, it did not differ significantly from group ZS (p ≤ 0.05). Failures were seen in both titanium bases and ceramic superstructure. Conclusions Zirconia and lithium disilicate hybrid implant‐supported restorations with short (3 mm) titanium bases failed in a considerable number already during chewing simulation. Therefore, despite their high fracture strength the use in the posterior region should be considered critically.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different occlusal preparation designs and CAD/CAM materials on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars endcrowns. Materials and Methods: sixty-four endodontically treated upper first premolars were randomly divided into four groups according to ceramic materials (Vita Enamic and IPS emax CAD) and occlusal preparation designs (Anatomical and horizontal butt joint). After teeth preparation, the restorations were all made by CAD/CAM system (Cerec MCXL). Half of each group had undergone cyclic fatigue testing of 105 cycles with 50N loading force at a frequency of 0.5Hz in a mechatronic chewing simulator machine, and then all samples were loaded to fracture using a universal testing machine with a cross head speed of 0.5mm/min recording the fracture resistance values in N . The specimens were measured and statistically analyzed using using three-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), followed by serial two-way and one-way ANOVAs at each level of the study. P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using BENFORRONI correction and the significance level was set at P ? 0.05 for all tests. Results: Vita Enamic endocrowns showed higher fracture resistance values than IPS e max specimens. Conclusions: Vita Enamic endocrowns with anatomical preparations were found to be more favourable restoring endodontically treated maxillary premolars. KEYWORDSEndocrowns; All-Ceramic; Fracture; Cyclic loading; CAD/CAM

No abstract

No abstract