PURPOSE: One-visit in-office CAD/CAM fabrication of esthetic ceramic crowns as a superstructure for posterior implants is quite new. The aim of the study was to evaluate the strength of esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM crowns with varied occlusal thickness and seated with adhesive and nonadhesive cements on titanium and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM-generated molar crowns (n = 15 per group) with occlusal thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm were seated on titanium (1) and zirconia (2) abutments: noncemented (a) and with nonadhesive cement (b) or 2 adhesive resin-based cements (c) and (d). In addition, 15 molar crowns with 5.5-mm occlusal thickness were seated on short zirconia abutments (3) using cements (c) and (d). All crowns had the identical occlusal morphology and were loaded with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Load data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, the Scheffé test, and Weibull probability of failure analysis. RESULTS: Fracture loads of 1.5-mm occlusal thickness crowns (a, b, c, d) were higher (P < .001) than those of 0.5-mm crowns (except for group ld). Occlusal 5.5-mm crowns on short zirconia abutments had similar (2c) or less (2d) strength than the respective 1.5-mm crowns. Nonadhesive crowns (1b, 2b) were weaker (P < .001) than adhesive crowns (1c, 1d, 2c, 2d). Fracture loads of 0.5- and 1.5-mm crowns were significantly higher on titanium than on zirconia abutments with both cements. Adhesive cement d generally showed higher fracture loads than c on both titanium and zirconia. CONCLUSION: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM molar implant crowns gained high strength with adhesive cements on both titanium and zirconia implant abutments compared to nonadhesive cementation.
PURPOSE: One-visit in-office CAD/CAM fabrication of esthetic ceramic crowns as a superstructure for posterior implants is quite new. The aim of the study was to evaluate the strength of esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM crowns with varied occlusal thickness and seated with adhesive and nonadhesive cements on titanium and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM-generated molar crowns (n = 15 per group) with occlusal thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm were seated on titanium (1) and zirconia (2) abutments: noncemented (a) and with nonadhesive cement (b) or 2 adhesive resin-based cements (c) and (d). In addition, 15 molar crowns with 5.5-mm occlusal thickness were seated on short zirconia abutments (3) using cements (c) and (d). All crowns had the identical occlusal morphology and were loaded with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Load data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, the Scheffé test, and Weibull probability of failure analysis. RESULTS:Fracture loads of 1.5-mm occlusal thickness crowns (a, b, c, d) were higher (P < .001) than those of 0.5-mm crowns (except for group ld). Occlusal 5.5-mm crowns on short zirconia abutments had similar (2c) or less (2d) strength than the respective 1.5-mm crowns. Nonadhesive crowns (1b, 2b) were weaker (P < .001) than adhesive crowns (1c, 1d, 2c, 2d). Fracture loads of 0.5- and 1.5-mm crowns were significantly higher on titanium than on zirconia abutments with both cements. Adhesive cement d generally showed higher fracture loads than c on both titanium and zirconia. CONCLUSION: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM molar implant crowns gained high strength with adhesive cements on both titanium and zirconia implant abutments compared to nonadhesive cementation.
Authors: Anna Winter; Axel Schurig; Engelke Rasche; Franziska Rösner; Lisa Kanus; Marc Schmitter Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.896