Fracture Resistance of Molar Crowns Fabricated with Monolithic All‐Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Cemented on Titanium Abutments: An In Vitro Study

Doğan, Derya Özdemir; Görler, Oğuzhan; Mutaf, Burcu; Özcan, Mutlu; Eyüboğlu, Güneş Bulut; Ülgey, Melih

doi:10.1111/jopr.12393

Cited by 34 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The other 16 specimens of each material were subjected to aging followed by either the fracture load test of the 8 polished specimens or retention test of the 8 unpolished specimens as described above. For the aging simulation, the crowns were first placed in a chewing simulator (CS-4.8, SD Mechatronik, Feldkirchen, Germany) and subjected to 1.2 Mio cycles [20,23,24,26,27] with a frequency of 1.5Hz (maximal capacity of the chewing simulator) and a force of 49N to initiate subcritical crack growth [20,[26][27][28]. Steel balls with a diameter of 4.5mm served as antagonists.…”

Section: Loading and Retention Capacity Of The Restorative Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effect of aging in the intraoral environment is simulated by subjecting the specimens to procedures such as dynamic loading and/or thermocyclic aging [12,18,[19][20][21]23,24]. However, in most studies only fracture load or retentive force values of the whole system are measured and the components by themselves are not properly characterized, which leads to a lack of data to interpret the obtained results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To test three potential prosthetic material options for zirconia implants in regard to their mechanical properties, loading and retention capacity as well as to record abrasion after chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. METHODS Molar crowns (n = 96) of three different computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials were produced and cemented on zirconia implants (ceramic.implant, Vita) with a diameter of 4.5 mm. Monolithic zirconia (Vita YZ [YZ] with RelyX Unicem 2 Automix [RUN], polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic [VE]) with Vita Adiva F-Cem [VAF] and acrylate polymer (CAD Temp [CT]) with RelyX Ultimate [RUL]. Fracture load and retentive force of the crowns were measured after 24 h water storage at 37°C and after a chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. Abrasion was recorded by matching stereolithography-data of the crowns obtained before and after chewing simulation. Additionally, the mechanical properties and bonding capabilities of the crown and cement materials were assessed. RESULTS Fracture load values were significantly highest for YZ > VE = CT. Retention force values did not differ significantly between the materials. The aging procedure did not affect the fracture load values nor the retention force significantly. Abrasion depth of the crowns was lowest for YZ followed by VE and CT. On unpolished crowns, abrasion of YZ and VE tended to be higher than on polished specimens. CONCLUSIONS Based on the obtained in-vitro results, all tested materials can be recommended for the use on zirconia implants, although CT is only approved for temporary crowns. The loading and retention capacity of the materials were not significantly affected by aging.

show abstract

Section: Loading and Retention Capacity Of The Restorative Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The IPS e.max CAD's characteristics of high strength, the ability to be milled to full-contour esthetics, and dual placement (bond or cement) are useful in creating in-office implant restorations and thin veneers, or in any other situation in which strength and esthetics should be carefully balanced [5]. From in vitro studies, there is strong evidence that monolithic restorations, in contrast to bi-layered restorations, show fracture strength and fatigue resistance suitable for use in posterior areas, both in single implant-supported and 3-unit fixed prostheses [107][108][109][110][111]. In vitro fully anatomical e.max CAD crowns have been shown to exhibit fracture resistance that is suitable for posterior, monolithic restorations and to be more resistant to fatigue in cyclic loading than veneered zirconia, which is more prone to chipping [112,113].…”

Section: Lithium Disilicate Glassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry

Pyo

Kim²,

Han

et al. 2020

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-aided design and manufacturing technology has been closely associated with implant-supported restoration. The digital system employed for prosthodontic restorations comprises data acquisition, processing, and manufacturing using subtractive or additive methods. As digital implantology has developed, optical scanning, computer-based digital algorithms, fabricating techniques, and numerical control skills have all rapidly improved in terms of their accuracy, which has resulted in the development of new ceramic materials with advanced esthetics and durability for clinical application. This study reviews the application of digital technology in implant-supported dental restoration and explores two globally utilized ceramic restorative materials: Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline and lithium disilicate glass ceramics.

show abstract

“…Several studies have analyzed the influence of the cement type on fracture load values of tooth-supported restorations and showed that feldspathic ceramic should be bonded adhesively to the abutment tooth to enhance strength and longevity (Attia, Abdelaziz, Freitag, & Kern, 2006;Borges et al, 2009;Groten & Probster, 1997). Implant-supported crowns fabricated from feldspathic ceramics cemented with self-adhesive resin cement have demonstrated values between 220 ± 50 N for initial fracture load and 1,130 ± 220 N for maximum fracture load (Dogan et al, 2017). In the meantime, several in vitro studies investigated the influence of crown material and cement on the fracture load of zirconia implant-supported crowns (Kohal, Kilian, Stampf, & Spies, 2015;Rohr, Coldea, Zitzmann, & Fischer, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Nueesch

Conejo

Mante

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study evaluated the loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements. Material and methods Fifty one‐piece zirconia implants were embedded in epoxy resin. The abutment aspect of one implant was optically scanned and a standardized upper canine was designed with CAD‐software. Fifty feldspathic ceramic crowns were milled, polished, and mounted on the implants either without any cement, with a temporary cement or with three different composite resin cements after surface pretreatment as recommended by the manufacturers (n = 10). After storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hr, specimens were loaded until fracture on the palatal surface of the crown at an angle of 45° to the long axis of the implant and loads until fracture were detected and compared. Compressive strength of the investigated cement materials was determined. Statistical analyses were done with One‐way ANOVA followed by post hoc Fisher LSD test (α = 0.05). Results The cements revealed significantly different compressive strength values (temporary cement: 37.1 ± 7.0 MPa; composite resin cements: 185.8 ± 21.3, 277.9 ± 22.1, and 389.0 ± 13.6 MPa, respectively). Load‐at‐fracture values had an overall mean value of 237.1 ± 58.2 N with no significant difference among the composite resin cements (p > 0.05). Fracture load values with the temporary cement or without cement were significantly lower (p < 0.002). Conclusions CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants provide sufficient resistance to intraoral forces.

show abstract

Fracture Resistance of Molar Crowns Fabricated with Monolithic All‐Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Cemented on Titanium Abutments: An In Vitro Study

Cited by 34 publications

References 35 publications

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About