LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 27 , Issue 6
November/December 2012

Pages 1448–1455


Fracture Resistance of Crowns Cemented on Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments: A Comparison of Monolithic Versus Manually Veneered All-Ceramic Systems

Francisco Martínez-Rus, DDS, PhD/Alberto Ferreiroa, DDS/Mutlu Özcan, DDS, Dr Med Dent, PhD/José F. Bartolomé, PhD/Guillermo Pradíes, DDS, PhD


PMID: 23189296

Purpose: To evaluate the fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns cemented on titanium and zirconia implant abutments. Material and Methods: Customized implant abutments for maxillary right central incisors made of titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) (n = 60, n = 30 per group) were fabricated for an internal connection implant system. All-ceramic crowns were fabricated for their corresponding implant abutments using the following systems (n = 10 per group): (1) monolithic computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/ CAM) lithium disilicate (MLD); (2) pressed lithium disilicate (PLD); (3) yttrium stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (YTZP). The frameworks of both PLD and YTZP systems were manually veneered with a fluorapatitebased ceramic. The crowns were adhesively cemented to their implant abutments and loaded to fracture in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/minute). Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). Results: Both the abutment material (P = .0001) and the ceramic crown system (P = .028) significantly affected the results. Interaction terms were not significant (P = .598). Ti-MLD (558.5 ± 35 N) showed the highest mean fracture resistance among all abutment− crown combinations (340.3 ± 62 − 495.9 ± 53 N) (P < .05). Both MLD and veneered ceramic systems in combination with Ti abutments (558.5 ± 35 − 495.9 ± 53 N) presented significantly higher values than with Zr abutments (392.9 ± 55 − 340.3 ± 62 N) (P < .05). MLD crown system showed significantly higher mean fracture resistance compared to manually veneered ones on both Ti and Zr abutments (P < .05). While Ti-MLD and Ti-PLD abutment-crown combinations failed only in the crowns without abutment fractures, Zr-YTZP combination failed exclusively in the abutment without crown fracture. Zr-MLD and Zr-PLD failed predominantly in both the abutment and the crown. Ti-YTZP showed only implant neck distortion. Conclusions: The highest fracture resistance was obtained with titanium abutments restored with MLD crowns, but the failure type was more favorable with Ti-YTZP combination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1448–1455

Key words: CAD/CAM, lithium disilicate, monolithic crowns, pressed ceramics, titanium, YTZP


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help