OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the failure and fracture resistance of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures (FPDs) under the influence of different surface treatments and adjustment procedures. METHODS: Seven groups (n=8/group) of three-unit zirconia-based FPDs were fabricated in anatomic design (AD) or anatomically reduced design (ARD) and surfaces were prepared according to clinical relevance: #1: AD - sintered; #2: AD - sintered - glazed; #3: AD - sintered - sandblasted - glazed; #4: AD - sintered - polished - grinded (contact points adjusted); #5: AD - sintered - polished - grinded - repolished; #6: ARD - sintered - veneered; #7: control: analogous to #3 but without thermal cycling (TC) and mechanical loading (ML). FPDs were adhesively bonded to polymethylmethacrylate abutment teeth. TCML (TC: 6000 × 5°/55°; ML: 1.2 × 10(6)× 50 N, 1.6 Hz) was conducted in a chewing simulator with steatite spheres as antagonists. Failures were monitored and fracture resistance was determined after ageing. Data were analysed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test; α=0.05). FPDs were subjected to scanning electron microscopy for fractographic failure analysis. RESULTS: None of the FPDs failed during TCML, but showed wear at contact points. Median fracture force ranged between 1173.5 N (#4) and 1316.0 N (#3) without significant (p=0.910) differences between the groups or in comparison to the control (p>0.462). CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia restorations showed high resistance to failures and fracture under different surface treatment variations. Full-contour polished or glazed zirconia FPDs might be an alternative to common veneered restorations.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the failure and fracture resistance of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures (FPDs) under the influence of different surface treatments and adjustment procedures. METHODS: Seven groups (n=8/group) of three-unit zirconia-based FPDs were fabricated in anatomic design (AD) or anatomically reduced design (ARD) and surfaces were prepared according to clinical relevance: #1: AD - sintered; #2: AD - sintered - glazed; #3: AD - sintered - sandblasted - glazed; #4: AD - sintered - polished - grinded (contact points adjusted); #5: AD - sintered - polished - grinded - repolished; #6: ARD - sintered - veneered; #7: control: analogous to #3 but without thermal cycling (TC) and mechanical loading (ML). FPDs were adhesively bonded to polymethylmethacrylate abutment teeth. TCML (TC: 6000 × 5°/55°; ML: 1.2 × 10(6)× 50 N, 1.6 Hz) was conducted in a chewing simulator with steatite spheres as antagonists. Failures were monitored and fracture resistance was determined after ageing. Data were analysed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test; α=0.05). FPDs were subjected to scanning electron microscopy for fractographic failure analysis. RESULTS: None of the FPDs failed during TCML, but showed wear at contact points. Median fracture force ranged between 1173.5 N (#4) and 1316.0 N (#3) without significant (p=0.910) differences between the groups or in comparison to the control (p>0.462). CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia restorations showed high resistance to failures and fracture under different surface treatment variations. Full-contour polished or glazed zirconia FPDs might be an alternative to common veneered restorations.
Authors: Martin Rosentritt; Sebastian Hahnel; Frank Engelhardt; Michael Behr; Verena Preis Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Deborah Pacheco Lameira; Wilkens Aurélio Buarque e Silva; Frederico Andrade e Silva; Grace M De Souza Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.411