Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns

Hussien, Ahmed Naguib M.; Rayyan, Mohammad M.; Sayed, Nagwa M.; Segaan, Lucette; Goodacre, Charles J.; Kattadiyil, Mathew T.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.016

Cited by 42 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results were in agreement with several studies comparing screw‐retained restorations with cement‐retained restorations (Hussien et al, ; Sailer et al, ; Wittneben, Millen, & Brägger, ). In contrast, Nogueira et al () reported that screw‐retained veneered zirconia restorations had statistically significant lower fracture resistance than cement‐retained restorations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Theses designs are usually chosen according to the clinicians' and patients' preferences and the clinical situation. Only few studies evaluated the difference between hybrid-abutment-crowns and hybrid-abutments with separate crowns (Elsayed et al, 2017(Elsayed et al, , 2018Hussien et al, 2016;Roberts, Bailey, Ashcraft-Olmscheid, & Vandewalle, 2018). Initial laboratory investigations and systematic reviews demonstrated promising results for monolithic crowns on prefabricated titanium bases (Conejo, Kobayashi, Anadioti, & Blatz, 2017;Joda, Bürki, Bethge, Brägger, & Zysset, 2015;Priest, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Nouh

Kern

Sabet

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Nouh

Kern

Sabet

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, altering the crown to allow more predictable cement removal and retrievability does not appear to significantly affect the fracture resistance of the final restoration. A recent study by Hussien et al found no significant difference in fracture resistance between all‐ceramic implant crowns with or without an occlusal screw‐access channel . Additionally, systematic reviews reveal no significant difference between cement‐ and screw‐retained restorations in implant survival or crown loss …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The results of this study should provide greater confidence in the use of the “screwmentable” technique as well of the use of lithium disilicate as a hybrid‐abutment material. The “screwmentable” type of restoration offers unique advantages over both screw‐ and cement‐retained implant restorations such as ease of retrievability (screw‐retained) and the ability to remove excess cement (cement‐retained) before clinical placement …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Titanium‐Based Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Implant Restorations

Roberts

Bailey²,

Ashcraft‐Olmscheid³

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their systematic review, Wittneben and colleagues concluded that newer ceramic screw‐retained crowns show failures rates comparable to those of cemented metal ceramic crowns because improvements in their biomechanical properties and the use of ceramic abutments did not increase the risk of failure. In an in vitro study of all‐ceramic implant crowns, Hussien and colleagues demonstrated that screw‐access channels did not negatively affect the fracture load of monolithic zirconia, monolithic lithium disilicate, or veneered zirconia ceramic implant crowns.…”

Section: A Comparison Of Current Options For Screw‐ and Cement‐retentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Current Perspective on Screw‐Retained Single‐Implant Restorations: A Review of Pertinent Literature

Priest

2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screw-retained single-implant crowns should be reconsidered for many clinical situations for the following reasons: Predictable retention and retrievability No potential for the biologic consequences associated with residual cement As with cement-retained restorations, the choice between metal ceramics or all ceramics Only one margin, at the implant/abutment interface A single abutment/crown ceramic margin that can extend gingivally to the implant interface Nearly imperceptible blend of a composite resin in ceramic abutment access openings One component instead of two, which may simplify the restorative process CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Innovations in implant and ceramic technology now give screw-retained prostheses the potential for esthetic, functional, and biologic outcomes that are comparable to those for cement-retained prostheses, while providing the advantages of predictable retrievability and avoidance of residual cement. Angled implants, however, remain a major indication for cement-retained single-implant prostheses. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:161-171, 2017).

show abstract

Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns

Cited by 42 publications

References 28 publications

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Fracture Resistance of Titanium‐Based Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Implant Restorations

A Current Perspective on Screw‐Retained Single‐Implant Restorations: A Review of Pertinent Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About