Cargando…

Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance under chewing simulation of implant-supported posterior restorations (crowns cemented to hybrid-abutments) made of different all-ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monolithic zirconia (MZr) and monolithic lithi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elshiyab, Shareen H, Nawafleh, Noor, Öchsner, Andreas, George, Roy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29503716
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.65
_version_ 1783302774528671744
author Elshiyab, Shareen H
Nawafleh, Noor
Öchsner, Andreas
George, Roy
author_facet Elshiyab, Shareen H
Nawafleh, Noor
Öchsner, Andreas
George, Roy
author_sort Elshiyab, Shareen H
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance under chewing simulation of implant-supported posterior restorations (crowns cemented to hybrid-abutments) made of different all-ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monolithic zirconia (MZr) and monolithic lithium disilicate (MLD) crowns for mandibular first molar were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology and then cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments (Ti-based). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10): (A) control group, crowns were subjected to single load to fracture; (B) test group, crowns underwent chewing simulation using multiple loads for 1.2 million cycles at 1.2 Hz with simultaneous thermocycling between 5℃ and 55℃. Data was statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and a Post-Hoc test. RESULTS: All tested crowns survived chewing simulation resulting in 100% survival rate. However, wear facets were observed on all the crowns at the occlusal contact point. Fracture load of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns was statistically significantly lower than that of monolithic zirconia crowns. Also, fracture load was significantly reduced in both of the all-ceramic materials after exposure to chewing simulation and thermocycling. Crowns of all test groups exhibited cohesive fracture within the monolithic crown structure only, and no abutment fractures or screw loosening were observed. CONCLUSION: When supported by implants, monolithic zirconia restorations cemented to hybrid abutments withstand masticatory forces. Also, fatigue loading accompanied by simultaneous thermocycling significantly reduces the strength of both of the all-ceramic materials. Moreover, further research is needed to define potentials, limits, and long-term serviceability of the materials and hybrid abutments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5829289
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58292892018-03-02 Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns Elshiyab, Shareen H Nawafleh, Noor Öchsner, Andreas George, Roy J Adv Prosthodont Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fracture resistance under chewing simulation of implant-supported posterior restorations (crowns cemented to hybrid-abutments) made of different all-ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monolithic zirconia (MZr) and monolithic lithium disilicate (MLD) crowns for mandibular first molar were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology and then cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments (Ti-based). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=10): (A) control group, crowns were subjected to single load to fracture; (B) test group, crowns underwent chewing simulation using multiple loads for 1.2 million cycles at 1.2 Hz with simultaneous thermocycling between 5℃ and 55℃. Data was statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and a Post-Hoc test. RESULTS: All tested crowns survived chewing simulation resulting in 100% survival rate. However, wear facets were observed on all the crowns at the occlusal contact point. Fracture load of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns was statistically significantly lower than that of monolithic zirconia crowns. Also, fracture load was significantly reduced in both of the all-ceramic materials after exposure to chewing simulation and thermocycling. Crowns of all test groups exhibited cohesive fracture within the monolithic crown structure only, and no abutment fractures or screw loosening were observed. CONCLUSION: When supported by implants, monolithic zirconia restorations cemented to hybrid abutments withstand masticatory forces. Also, fatigue loading accompanied by simultaneous thermocycling significantly reduces the strength of both of the all-ceramic materials. Moreover, further research is needed to define potentials, limits, and long-term serviceability of the materials and hybrid abutments. The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2018-02 2018-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5829289/ /pubmed/29503716 http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.65 Text en © 2018 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Elshiyab, Shareen H
Nawafleh, Noor
Öchsner, Andreas
George, Roy
Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title_full Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title_fullStr Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title_full_unstemmed Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title_short Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
title_sort fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29503716
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.65
work_keys_str_mv AT elshiyabshareenh fractureresistanceofimplantsupportedmonolithiccrownscementedtozirconiahybridabutmentszirconiabasedcrownsvslithiumdisilicatecrowns
AT nawaflehnoor fractureresistanceofimplantsupportedmonolithiccrownscementedtozirconiahybridabutmentszirconiabasedcrownsvslithiumdisilicatecrowns
AT ochsnerandreas fractureresistanceofimplantsupportedmonolithiccrownscementedtozirconiahybridabutmentszirconiabasedcrownsvslithiumdisilicatecrowns
AT georgeroy fractureresistanceofimplantsupportedmonolithiccrownscementedtozirconiahybridabutmentszirconiabasedcrownsvslithiumdisilicatecrowns