Cargando…
Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses
BACKGROUND: Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. METHODS: The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00267-x |
_version_ | 1783600397390184448 |
---|---|
author | Yeğin, Elif Atala, Mustafa Hayati |
author_facet | Yeğin, Elif Atala, Mustafa Hayati |
author_sort | Yeğin, Elif |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. METHODS: The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS, monolithic), group L-V: LDS ceramic (veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS, monolithic), group ZL-V: ZLS ceramic (veneering). Crown restorations were subjected to load-to-failure test (0.5 mm/min). Failure loads of each group were statistically analyzed (two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to compare the stress distribution of crown restorations. RESULTS: Group L-M had the highest failure load (2891.88 ± 410.12 N) with a significant difference from other groups (p < 0.05). Although there was a significant difference between group ZL-M (1750.28 ± 314.96 N) and ZL-V (2202.55 ± 503.14 N), there was no significant difference from group L-V in both groups (2077.37 ± 356.59 N) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The veneer application had opposite effects on ceramics, increased the failure load of ZLS and reduced it for LDS without a statistically significant difference. Both materials are suitable for implant-supported crowns. Different restorative materials did not influence the stress distribution, but monolithic restorations reduced the stress concentration on the implant and bone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7588579 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75885792020-10-27 Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses Yeğin, Elif Atala, Mustafa Hayati Int J Implant Dent Research BACKGROUND: Present study compared the failure load of CAD/CAM-manufactured implant-supported crowns and the stress distribution on the prosthesis-implant-bone complex with different restoration techniques. METHODS: The materials were divided into four groups: group L-M: lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS, monolithic), group L-V: LDS ceramic (veneering), group ZL-M: zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS, monolithic), group ZL-V: ZLS ceramic (veneering). Crown restorations were subjected to load-to-failure test (0.5 mm/min). Failure loads of each group were statistically analyzed (two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to compare the stress distribution of crown restorations. RESULTS: Group L-M had the highest failure load (2891.88 ± 410.12 N) with a significant difference from other groups (p < 0.05). Although there was a significant difference between group ZL-M (1750.28 ± 314.96 N) and ZL-V (2202.55 ± 503.14 N), there was no significant difference from group L-V in both groups (2077.37 ± 356.59 N) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The veneer application had opposite effects on ceramics, increased the failure load of ZLS and reduced it for LDS without a statistically significant difference. Both materials are suitable for implant-supported crowns. Different restorative materials did not influence the stress distribution, but monolithic restorations reduced the stress concentration on the implant and bone. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7588579/ /pubmed/33106916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00267-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Yeğin, Elif Atala, Mustafa Hayati Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title | Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title_full | Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title_fullStr | Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title_short | Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
title_sort | comparison of cad/cam manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00267-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yeginelif comparisonofcadcammanufacturedimplantsupportedcrownswithdifferentanalyses AT atalamustafahayati comparisonofcadcammanufacturedimplantsupportedcrownswithdifferentanalyses |