Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses

Abstract

Background Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. Methods The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS, monolithic), group L-V: LDS ceramic (veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS, monolithic), group ZL-V: ZLS ceramic (veneering). Crown restorations were subjected to load-to-failure test (0.5 mm/min). Failure loads of each group were statistically analyzed (two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to compare the stress distribution of crown restorations. Results Group L-M had the highest failure load (2891.88 ± 410.12 N) with a significant difference from other groups (p < 0.05). Although there was a significant difference between group ZL-M (1750.28 ± 314.96 N) and ZL-V (2202.55 ± 503.14 N), there was no significant difference from group L-V in both groups (2077.37 ± 356.59 N) (p > 0.05). Conclusions The veneer application had opposite effects on ceramics, increased the failure load of ZLS and reduced it for LDS without a statistically significant difference. Both materials are suitable for implant-supported crowns. Different restorative materials did not influence the stress distribution, but monolithic restorations reduced the stress concentration on the implant and bone.

Influence of Different Restoring Materials on Stress Distribution in Prosthesis on Implants: A Review of Finite Element Studies

“…Twelve studies found no differences in force dissipation in bone tissue between different prosthetic materials. 2,4,6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]20 Only two studies found a positive relationship between the restorative material and bone tissue tension 17,18 .…”

“…2 This analysis identifies stresses and their dissipation at the prosthesis- implant-bone interface, which can be difficult to assess by other biomechanical methods. 14 After the review of included studies, it was found that most of the articles indicate that the prosthetic material does not influence the generation of tension and dissipation in the bone and peri-implant tissue. This can be justified due to the use of different prosthetic materials having less influence on the stresses in the supporting bone with 1% of the variance.…”

The Influence of Different Implant Abutment Sizes on Fracture Resistance of Two Monolithic Ceramic Crown Systems

“…Monolithic yttriastabilized tetragonal zirconia has the advantages of tooth colour, minimum wear on opposing teeth, conservative tooth preparation, and the promise for outstanding long-term clinical performance (19) . Clinical performance has been great without layering porcelain, as long as tooth preparation is appropriate and the dental laboratory and clinical materials are treated correctly (19,20) .…”

Clinical Outcomes of CAD/CAM (Lithium disilicate and Zirconia) Based and Conventional Full Crowns and Fixed Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Moreover, information regarding the clinical performance of CAD/CAM-based restoration materials compared to conventionally manufactured materials has been scarce and scattered. To date, evidence regarding the clinical performance of LD and ZC is still limited and often debatable, highlighting the need for further studies to precisely outline the clinical indications and durable performance of such CAD/CAM-based ceramics [18,19]. Furthermore, information regarding which fabrication technique is the best, the preference being primarily guided by clinical outcomes, is still controversial [20].…”