STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because of their specific mechanical properties, all-ceramic restorations demonstrate a lower fracture resistance than ceramic restorations supported by metal substructures. However, advances have been made in the fabrication of high-strength all-ceramic abutments for anterior implants. No previous study has compared the fracture loads between 2 different all-ceramic abutments restored by glass-ceramic crowns. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to quantify the fracture load of implanted-supported Al(2)O(3) and ZrO(2) abutments restored with glass-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two ceramic abutments were tested: an Al(2)O(3) abutment (CerAdapt) and a ZrO(2) abutment (Wohlwend Innovative). The abutments (n = 10) were placed on Brånemark dental implants and prepared for restoration with glass-ceramic crowns (IPS Empress). After fabrication, in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines, the crowns were bonded to the all-ceramic abutments with a dual-polymerizing resin luting agent. The fracture loads (N) were determined by force application at an angle of 30 degrees by use of a computer-controlled universal testing device. The data were analyzed with the unpaired t test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed significant differences between both groups (P=.001) of all-ceramic abutments, with mean fracture load values of 280.1 N (+/- 103.1) for the Al(2)O(3) abutments and 737.6 N (+/- 245.0) for the ZrO(2) abutments. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, both all-ceramic abutments exceeded the established values for maximum incisal forces reported in the literature (90 to 370 N). The ZrO(2) abutments were more than twice as resistant to fracture as the Al(2)O(3)-abutments.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because of their specific mechanical properties, all-ceramic restorations demonstrate a lower fracture resistance than ceramic restorations supported by metal substructures. However, advances have been made in the fabrication of high-strength all-ceramic abutments for anterior implants. No previous study has compared the fracture loads between 2 different all-ceramic abutments restored by glass-ceramic crowns. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to quantify the fracture load of implanted-supported Al(2)O(3) and ZrO(2) abutments restored with glass-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two ceramic abutments were tested: an Al(2)O(3) abutment (CerAdapt) and a ZrO(2) abutment (Wohlwend Innovative). The abutments (n = 10) were placed on Brånemark dental implants and prepared for restoration with glass-ceramic crowns (IPS Empress). After fabrication, in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines, the crowns were bonded to the all-ceramic abutments with a dual-polymerizing resin luting agent. The fracture loads (N) were determined by force application at an angle of 30 degrees by use of a computer-controlled universal testing device. The data were analyzed with the unpaired t test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed significant differences between both groups (P=.001) of all-ceramic abutments, with mean fracture load values of 280.1 N (+/- 103.1) for the Al(2)O(3) abutments and 737.6 N (+/- 245.0) for the ZrO(2) abutments. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, both all-ceramic abutments exceeded the established values for maximum incisal forces reported in the literature (90 to 370 N). The ZrO(2) abutments were more than twice as resistant to fracture as the Al(2)O(3)-abutments.
Authors: R Velázquez-Cayón; C Vaquero-Aguilar; D Torres-Lagares; M Jiménez-Melendo; J-L Gutiérrez-Pérez Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Frank P Nothdurft; Klaus E Doppler; Kurt J Erdelt; Andreas W Knauber; Peter R Pospiech Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Christian F J Stappert; Marta Baldassarri; Yu Zhang; Felix Hänssler; Elizabeth D Rekow Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 5.977