Literature DB >> 29196948

Fracture behavior of all-ceramic, implant-supported, and tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.

Abdul Rahman Alkharrat1,2,3, Marc Schmitter4, Stefan Rues5, Peter Rammelsberg5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In vitro investigation of the effects of fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) support and loading conditions on the fracture behavior of all-ceramic, zirconia-based FDP veneered with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-manufactured lithium disilicate ceramic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a model for a 3-unit FDP in the molar region (tooth in region 15, implant in region 17), 16 identical zirconia frameworks were fabricated and veneered with milled lithium disilicate ceramic. Another 16 FDPs were manufactured similarly, using a model in which the tooth was replaced by an implant. The specimens underwent 10,000 thermal cycles between 6.5 and 60 °C and 1,200,000 chewing cycles with a force magnitude of 100 N. All were then subsequently loaded until fracture in a universal testing device. Half of the FDPs were subjected to centric and axial loading on the pontic, the others to eccentric and oblique loading on one cusp of the pontic.
RESULTS: No failures were observed after artificial aging. Fracture loads of tooth-implant-supported restorations were 1636 ± 158 and 1086 ± 156 N for axial and oblique loading, respectively; implant-supported FDPs fractured at 1789 ± 202 and 1200 ± 68 N, respectively. Differences were significant for load application (P < 0.001) and support type (P = 0.020). For the two types of load application, fracture mode differed substantially: complete fracture was observed for centric and axial loading whereas mixed cohesive/adhesive failure was observed for many FDPs loaded eccentrically and obliquely.
CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence of chipping of manually veneered implant-supported all-ceramics restorations might be reduced by use of CAD/CAM-manufactured lithium disilicate veneers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FDPs veneered with lithium disilicate resist occlusal forces of 500 N, irrespective of load application and support type. The fracture resistance of implant-supported FDPs was, however, higher than that of combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs. Their clinical use seems to be justified.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-ceramics FDPs; Chipping; Different loading conditions; Different support types; Fracture resistance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29196948     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2233-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  34 in total

1.  Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients. Part I: An up to 15-years clinical evaluation.

Authors:  I E Naert; J A Duyck; M M Hosny; D Van Steenberghe
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.977

2.  Chipping behaviour of all-ceramic crowns with zirconia framework and CAD/CAM manufactured veneer.

Authors:  M Schmitter; D Mueller; S Rues
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Use of abutment-teeth vs. dental implants to support all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: an in-vitro study on fracture strength.

Authors:  Per Vult von Steyern; Yuji Kokubo; Krister Nilner
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  2005

4.  ZrO2 three-unit fixed partial dentures: comparison of failure load before and after exposure to a mastication simulator.

Authors:  W Att; M Grigoriadou; J R Strub
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.837

5.  Laboratory simulation of Y-TZP all-ceramic crown clinical failures.

Authors:  P G Coelho; E A Bonfante; N R F Silva; E D Rekow; V P Thompson
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 6.  A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. II. Combined tooth--implant-supported FPDs.

Authors:  Niklaus P Lang; Bjarni E Pjetursson; Ken Tan; Urs Brägger; Matthias Egger; Marcel Zwahlen
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.977

7.  Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function.

Authors:  U Brägger; S Aeschlimann; W Bürgin; C H Hämmerle; N P Lang
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.977

8.  Fracture force of tooth-tooth- and implant-tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed partial dentures using titanium vs. customised zirconia implant abutments.

Authors:  Carola Kolbeck; Michael Behr; Martin Rosentritt; Gerhard Handel
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 9.  Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs).

Authors:  Bjarni E Pjetursson; Urs Brägger; Niklaus P Lang; Marcel Zwahlen
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.977

10.  Prospective evaluation of implants connected to teeth.

Authors:  Michael S Block; Denise Lirette; Diana Gardiner; Linxiong Li; Israel M Finger; J Hochstedler; Gerald Evans; John N Kent; Dale J Misiek; Arturo J Mendez; Luis Guerra; Harold Larsen; William Wood; Pat Worthington
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

View more
  1 in total

1.  [Clinical classification and treatment decision of implant fracture].

Authors:  Y Li; H J Yu; L X Qiu
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-02-18
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.