Simon Taufall1, Marlis Eichberger1, Patrick R Schmidlin2, Bogna Stawarczyk3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. 2. Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the fracture load of different veneered PEEK 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) after different aging regimens. METHODS: Congruently anatomically shaped 3-unit FDPs were milled using a master stl-data set and randomly divided into four groups (N = 120, n = 30 per veneering group), which were veneered using different veneering methods: (i) digital veneering with breCAM.HIPC, (ii) conventional veneering with crea.lign, (iii) conventional with crea.lign paste, and (iv) using pre-manufactured veneers visio.lign. The FDPs were then adhesively cemented on a metal abutment and fracture loads were measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) before and after aging (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 °C). Two- and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Scheffé tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: This investigation showed an influence of the veneering method on the fracture load results independent of the aging level. The highest fracture load was measured for the FDPs with digital veneering (1882 ± 152 N at baseline, 2021 ± 184 N after thermocycling). The remaining groups showed comparable results, and no impact of thermal aging was observed. Digital and conventional veneers showed cracks in the pontic region starting from the connector area as a main failure type after loading, while the pre-manufactured veneers showed predominantly adhesive failures. CONCLUSIONS: The digital veneering method showed the highest fracture load resistance. Thermal aging showed no impact on the fracture load of all tested veneered PEEK 3-unit FDPs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to this study results, reliable veneering of PEEK FDPs can be achieved with digital veneering.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the fracture load of different veneered PEEK 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) after different aging regimens. METHODS: Congruently anatomically shaped 3-unit FDPs were milled using a master stl-data set and randomly divided into four groups (N = 120, n = 30 per veneering group), which were veneered using different veneering methods: (i) digital veneering with breCAM.HIPC, (ii) conventional veneering with crea.lign, (iii) conventional with crea.lign paste, and (iv) using pre-manufactured veneers visio.lign. The FDPs were then adhesively cemented on a metal abutment and fracture loads were measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) before and after aging (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 °C). Two- and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Scheffé tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: This investigation showed an influence of the veneering method on the fracture load results independent of the aging level. The highest fracture load was measured for the FDPs with digital veneering (1882 ± 152 N at baseline, 2021 ± 184 N after thermocycling). The remaining groups showed comparable results, and no impact of thermal aging was observed. Digital and conventional veneers showed cracks in the pontic region starting from the connector area as a main failure type after loading, while the pre-manufactured veneers showed predominantly adhesive failures. CONCLUSIONS: The digital veneering method showed the highest fracture load resistance. Thermal aging showed no impact on the fracture load of all tested veneered PEEK 3-unit FDPs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to this study results, reliable veneering of PEEK FDPs can be achieved with digital veneering.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital veneering; Fracture load; PEEK; Veneering resin composite
Authors: Bogna Stawarczyk; Andreas Ender; Albert Trottmann; Mutlu Özcan; Jens Fischer; Christoph H F Hämmerle Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Jeffrey M Toth; Mei Wang; Bradley T Estes; Jeffrey L Scifert; Howard B Seim; A Simon Turner Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Oliver Sproesser; Patrick R Schmidlin; Julia Uhrenbacher; Malgorzata Roos; Wolfgang Gernet; Bogna Stawarczyk Journal: J Adhes Dent Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Angelika Rauch; Sebastian Hahnel; Elena Günther; Wolfgang Bidmon; Oliver Schierz Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Aleksandra Skorulska; Paweł Piszko; Zbigniew Rybak; Maria Szymonowicz; Maciej Dobrzyński Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.623