Martin Rosentritt1, Sebastian Hahnel1, Frank Engelhardt1, Michael Behr1, Verena Preis2. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. 2. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. verena.preis@ukr.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to investigate the performance and fracture resistance of different CAD/CAM ceramic and composite materials as implant- or tooth-supported single crowns with respect to the clinical procedure (screwed/bonded restoration). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty crowns were fabricated on implants or human molar teeth simulating (a) chairside procedure ([CHAIR] implant crown bonded to abutment), (b) labside procedure ([LAB] abutment and implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), and (c) reference ([TOOTH] crowns luted on human teeth). Four materials were investigated: ZLS (zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic; Celtra Duo, Degudent: polished (P)/crystallized (C)), RB (resin-based composite; Cerasmart, GC), and RIC (resin-infiltrated ceramic; Enamic, Vita-Zahnfabrik). LiS (lithiumdisilicate; Emax CAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) was performed simulating a 5-year clinical situation. Fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, one-way ANOVA; post hoc Bonferroni, α = 0.05). RESULTS: One crown of ZLS_C[LAB] (1,200,000 cycles) and RB[CHAIR] (890 cycles) failed during TCML. Fracture values varied between 977.7 N(RB) and 3070.4 N(LiS)[CHAIR], 1130.6 N(RB) and 2998.1 N(LiS)[LAB], and 1802.4 N(ZLS) and 2664.3 N(LiS)[TOOTH]. Significantly (p < 0.003) different forces were found between the materials in all three groups. ZLS_C, RIC, and RB showed significantly (p < 0.014) different values for the individual groups. CONCLUSIONS: Partly ceramic and resin-based materials performed differently on implant or tooth abutments. The insertion of a screw channel reduced the stability for individual crown materials. Insertion of the screw channel should be performed carefully. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All restorations were in a range where clinical application seems not restricted, but insertion of a screw channel might reduce stability of individual materials.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to investigate the performance and fracture resistance of different CAD/CAM ceramic and composite materials as implant- or tooth-supported single crowns with respect to the clinical procedure (screwed/bonded restoration). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty crowns were fabricated on implants or human molar teeth simulating (a) chairside procedure ([CHAIR] implant crown bonded to abutment), (b) labside procedure ([LAB] abutment and implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), and (c) reference ([TOOTH] crowns luted on human teeth). Four materials were investigated: ZLS (zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic; Celtra Duo, Degudent: polished (P)/crystallized (C)), RB (resin-based composite; Cerasmart, GC), and RIC (resin-infiltrated ceramic; Enamic, Vita-Zahnfabrik). LiS (lithiumdisilicate; Emax CAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) was performed simulating a 5-year clinical situation. Fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, one-way ANOVA; post hoc Bonferroni, α = 0.05). RESULTS: One crown of ZLS_C[LAB] (1,200,000 cycles) and RB[CHAIR] (890 cycles) failed during TCML. Fracture values varied between 977.7 N(RB) and 3070.4 N(LiS)[CHAIR], 1130.6 N(RB) and 2998.1 N(LiS)[LAB], and 1802.4 N(ZLS) and 2664.3 N(LiS)[TOOTH]. Significantly (p < 0.003) different forces were found between the materials in all three groups. ZLS_C, RIC, and RB showed significantly (p < 0.014) different values for the individual groups. CONCLUSIONS: Partly ceramic and resin-based materials performed differently on implant or tooth abutments. The insertion of a screw channel reduced the stability for individual crown materials. Insertion of the screw channel should be performed carefully. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All restorations were in a range where clinical application seems not restricted, but insertion of a screw channel might reduce stability of individual materials.
Authors: Ulf Schepke; Henny Ja Meijer; Karin M Vermeulen; Gerry M Raghoebar; Marco S Cune Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Enrico Conserva; Maria Menini; Tiziano Tealdo; Marco Bevilacqua; Giambattista Ravera; Francisco Pera; Paolo Pera Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: Maria Menini; Enrico Conserva; Tiziano Tealdo; Marco Bevilacqua; Francesco Pera; Alessio Signori; Paolo Pera Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.681