Fracture Strength of Implant‐Supported Ceramic Crowns with Customized Zirconia Abutments: Screw Retained vs. Cement Retained

Nogueira, Lorenna Bastos Lima Verde; Moura, Carmem Dolores Vilarinho Soares de; Francischone, Carlos Eduardo; Valente, V. S.; Alencar, Suyá Moura Mendes; Moura, Walter Leal de; Martins, Gregório Antônio Soares

doi:10.1111/jopr.12278

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results were in agreement with several studies comparing screw-retained restorations with cement-retained restorations (Hussien et al, 2016;Sailer et al, 2012;Wittneben, Millen, & Brägger, 2014). In contrast, Nogueira et al (2016) reported that screw-retained veneered zirconia restorations had statistically significant lower fracture resistance than cement-retained restorations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…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. However, in this study veneered zirconia restorations were used and failures in the screw‐retained group were found exclusively in the veneering ceramic, which explains the lower fracture resistance of the screw‐retained group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This might be due to the higher fracture strength and fracture toughness of zirconia (Vagkopoulou et al, ), in comparison to lithium disilicate (Li et al, ). Group ZS had slightly more failures than group ZC; this could be due to the hybrid‐abutment design that may allow better force dissipation due to the presence of multiple interfaces (crown/abutment and abutment/titanium base) (Nogueira et al, ), while the hybrid‐abutment‐crown design has only a small interface area at the bonding surface to the titanium base. Group LC showed more failures than group LS, which can be attributed to the higher strength of the material when used as a monolithic block than when used as an abutment and crown with minimum thicknesses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Both titanium and zirconia abutments demonstrate a low rate of failures and biological complications . One study from Nogueira and colleagues that examined 40 ceramic crowns with zirconia infrastructures on external hex implants demonstrated a higher fracture resistance of the veneering ceramic of cement‐retained implant crowns. However, external hex implants are rapidly becoming superseded by those with internal connections.…”

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

“…1,34 Siman bağlantılı implant destekli üst yapıların en önemli avantajları arasında; pasif uyum, uygulama kolaylığı, estetik, düşük maliyet, daha az vida gevşe-mesi ve kırılması gösterilmektedir. 5,[33][34][35] Kontrol edilebilirlik, bu bağlantı şeklinde tam olarak mümkün değildir. Dolayısıyla başarısızlık durumunda, protetik üst yapının yenilenmesi gerekebilir.…”

Section: Siman Bağlantılı Dayanaklarunclassified

Abutment Selection for Implant Supported Fixed Prosthodontic Restorations

Şen¹,

Us²

2019

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ö ÖZ ZE ET T Diş Hekimliği'nde implant uygulamaları, yüksek başarı ve sağkalım oranları ile diş eksikliği nedeniyle kaybedilen fonksiyon ve estetiği geri kazandırmak için sıklıkla tercih edilen bir tedavi seçeneğidir. Son yıllarda, hasta ve hekimlerin artan estetik beklentileri, oral implantolojinin protetik aşamasını çok daha önemli bir hale getirmiştir. Oral implantolojide, implant destekli sabit protetik restorasyonlar için kullanılan dayanaklar, sıkça güncellenen komponentler arasındadır. Üretici firmalar tarafından pek çok farklı dayanak seçeneği piyasaya sunulmakta ve bu çeşitlilik hekim için tercih yapmayı zorlaştırmaktadır. Dental implant uygulamalarında, kapsamlı bir tedavi planlaması için biyomekanik, estetik, periodontal ve restoratif malzeme seçeneğinin de aralarında bulunduğu pek çok parametre dikkatle değer-lendirilmelidir. Doğru bir dayanak seçimi, mekanik olarak stabil ve estetik olarak beklentiyi karşılayan protetik restorasyonlar üretilebilmesi için kritik önem taşımaktadır. Mevcut klinik duruma uygun bir dayanak seçimi için kullanılacak olan dayanağın materyali, şekli, tipi ve implant-dayanak bağlantı tasarımı hakkında bilgi sahibi olunması gerekir. Dental implantların uzun dönem klinik başarısı, mikrohareket, anti-rotasyonel stabilite ve bakteriyal sızıntı gibi implant-dayanak bağlantısı ile ilgili çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenmektedir. Bu çalışmada; dayanak çeşitleri, şekilleri, dayanak üretiminde kullanılan malzemeler ve piyasada mevcut implant-dayanak bağlantı tasarımları ile ilgili bilgi verilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. İmplant destekli sabit protetik restorasyonlar için dayanak seçimi konusunda bilgi sahibi olmak, hekimin klinik pratikte zorlayıcı bir karar olan dayanak tercihini kolaylaştırmaya yardımcı olabilir.A An na ah h t ta ar r K Ke e l li i m me e l le er r: : Diş implantasyonu, endosseöz; dental implant-kaide tasarımı; diş dayanakları A AB BS S T TR RA AC CT T Dental implant therapy is an often preferred treatment option to restore oral functions and aesthetics in patients with missing teeth. The restorative procedure of implant dentistry has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years due to the constant increase of patient's demands for dental esthetics. Abutments for implant supported restorations are among the components that undergo frequent updates. Several abutment options have been introduced to dental market that makes the selection more complex and complicated for the clinicians. Many factors should be considered for a comprehensive treatment planning including biomechanics, esthetics, bone maintenance and restorative material options. Choosing the correct abutment has great importance to achieve a mechanically stable and esthetically pleasing restoration. It is critical to know the details of available abutment materials, their shapes, the type and design of the implant-abutment connection to select an appropriate abutment in any clinical situation. The long term success of dental implants are affected by various parameters related to the implant-abutment connection s...

show abstract

Fracture Strength of Implant‐Supported Ceramic Crowns with Customized Zirconia Abutments: Screw Retained vs. Cement Retained

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 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

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

Abutment Selection for Implant Supported Fixed Prosthodontic Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About