Martin Rosentritt1, Philipp Raab1, Sebastian Hahnel1, Matthias Stöckle1, 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 was to investigate the in-vitro performance and fracture resistance of a temporary computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured polymethylmethacrylate (CAD/CAM-PMMA) material as implant or tooth-supported single crown with respect to the clinical procedure (permanently bonded/temporarily cemented). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four crowns were fabricated on implants or human molar teeth simulating (a) labside procedure on prefabricated titanium-bonding base ([TiBase] implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), (b) labside procedure ([LAB] standard abutment and implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), (c) chairside procedure ([CHAIR] implant crown bonded to abutment), and (d) reference ([TOOTH] crowns luted on prepared human teeth). Crowns were made of a CAD/CAM-PMMA temporary material (TelioCAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent). For investigating the influence of fixation, half of the crowns were permanently (P) or temporarily (T) bonded. 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: All restorations survived TCML without visible failures. Fracture results varied between 3034.3 (Tooth-P) and 1602.9 N (Tooth-T) [TOOTH], 1510.5 (TiBase-P) and 963.6 N (TiBase-T) [TiBase], 2691.1 (LAB-P) and 2064.5 N (LAB-T) [LAB], and 1609.4 (Chair-P) and 1253.0 N (Chair-T) [CHAIR]. Tested groups showed significantly (p < 0.001) different fracture values. Failure pattern was characterized by fractures in mesial-distal, buccal-oral, or mixed (mesial-distal/buccal-oral) directions, with differences for the individual groups. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary CAD/CAM crowns showed no different in-vitro performance but provided different fracture results that depended on cementation, screw channel, and type of abutment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All bonded and screwed PMMA crowns were in a range where clinical application seems not restricted.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the in-vitro performance and fracture resistance of a temporary computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured polymethylmethacrylate (CAD/CAM-PMMA) material as implant or tooth-supported single crown with respect to the clinical procedure (permanently bonded/temporarily cemented). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four crowns were fabricated on implants or human molar teeth simulating (a) labside procedure on prefabricated titanium-bonding base ([TiBase] implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), (b) labside procedure ([LAB] standard abutment and implant crown bonded in laboratory, screwed chairside), (c) chairside procedure ([CHAIR] implant crown bonded to abutment), and (d) reference ([TOOTH] crowns luted on prepared human teeth). Crowns were made of a CAD/CAM-PMMA temporary material (TelioCAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent). For investigating the influence of fixation, half of the crowns were permanently (P) or temporarily (T) bonded. 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: All restorations survived TCML without visible failures. Fracture results varied between 3034.3 (Tooth-P) and 1602.9 N (Tooth-T) [TOOTH], 1510.5 (TiBase-P) and 963.6 N (TiBase-T) [TiBase], 2691.1 (LAB-P) and 2064.5 N (LAB-T) [LAB], and 1609.4 (Chair-P) and 1253.0 N (Chair-T) [CHAIR]. Tested groups showed significantly (p < 0.001) different fracture values. Failure pattern was characterized by fractures in mesial-distal, buccal-oral, or mixed (mesial-distal/buccal-oral) directions, with differences for the individual groups. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary CAD/CAM crowns showed no different in-vitro performance but provided different fracture results that depended on cementation, screw channel, and type of abutment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All bonded and screwed PMMA crowns were in a range where clinical application seems not restricted.
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
Authors: Mohammad M Rayyan; Moustafa Aboushelib; Nagwa M Sayed; Ahmed Ibrahim; Ryo Jimbo Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Mario Seiss; Siegfried Nitz; Norbert Kleinsasser; Jeroen T M Buters; Heidrun Behrendt; Reinhard Hickel; Franz X Reichl Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 5.304
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