Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abutment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns-A laboratory study.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jan; 30(1):90-98.CO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance, fracture resistance and mode of failure of posterior hybrid-abutment-crown vs. hybrid-abutment with separate crown, both bonded to short titanium bases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two titanium implants were embedded perpendicularly in auto-polymerizing resin. Implant-supported restorations simulating a maxillary first premolar were designed and milled using a CAD/CAM system and divided into 2 groups according to material (n = 16): zirconia (Z) and lithium disilicate (L). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to design (n = 8): hybrid-abutment-crown (ZS, LS) and hybrid-abutment with separate crown (ZC, LC). Each group was subjected to 1.2 million cycles of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading in a dual-axis chewing simulator at 120 N load. Surviving specimens were subjected to quasi-static loading in a universal testing machine. Mode of failure was determined under a low magnification optical microscope.

RESULTS

During chewing simulation, 18.8% of zirconia and 43.8% of lithium disilicate restorations failed. The fracture resistance median values ranged from 3,730 N for group ZC, 3,400 N for group ZS, 1,295 N for group LS to 849 N for group LC. Group ZC had a statistically significant higher fracture resistance than groups LC and LS; however, it did not differ significantly from group ZS (p ≤ 0.05). Failures were seen in both titanium bases and ceramic superstructure.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia and lithium disilicate hybrid implant-supported restorations with short (3 mm) titanium bases failed in a considerable number already during chewing simulation. Therefore, despite their high fracture strength the use in the posterior region should be considered critically.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Nouh I
Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutic and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany. Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Kern M
Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutic and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.
Sabet AE
Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Aboelfadl AK
Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hamdy AM
Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Chaar MS
Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutic and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.

MeSH

CrownsDental AbutmentsDental Implant-Abutment DesignDental ImplantsDental PorcelainHumansMaterials TestingTitaniumZirconium

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30521070

Citation

Nouh, Ingy, et al. "Mechanical Behavior of Posterior All-ceramic Hybrid-abutment-crowns Versus Hybrid-abutments With Separate crowns-A Laboratory Study." Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 30, no. 1, 2019, pp. 90-98.
Nouh I, Kern M, Sabet AE, et al. Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abutment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns-A laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(1):90-98.
Nouh, I., Kern, M., Sabet, A. E., Aboelfadl, A. K., Hamdy, A. M., & Chaar, M. S. (2019). Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abutment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns-A laboratory study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 30(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13395
Nouh I, et al. Mechanical Behavior of Posterior All-ceramic Hybrid-abutment-crowns Versus Hybrid-abutments With Separate crowns-A Laboratory Study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(1):90-98. PubMed PMID: 30521070.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abutment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns-A laboratory study. AU - Nouh,Ingy, AU - Kern,Matthias, AU - Sabet,Ahmed E, AU - Aboelfadl,Ahmad K, AU - Hamdy,Amina M, AU - Chaar,Mohamed S, Y1 - 2018/12/23/ PY - 2018/04/07/received PY - 2018/11/17/revised PY - 2018/11/20/accepted PY - 2018/12/7/pubmed PY - 2019/6/14/medline PY - 2018/12/7/entrez KW - abutments KW - ceramics KW - chewing simulation KW - fatigue resistance KW - fracture resistance KW - hybrid-abutments KW - implants KW - prosthodontics KW - titanium bases SP - 90 EP - 98 JF - Clinical oral implants research JO - Clin Oral Implants Res VL - 30 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance, fracture resistance and mode of failure of posterior hybrid-abutment-crown vs. hybrid-abutment with separate crown, both bonded to short titanium bases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two titanium implants were embedded perpendicularly in auto-polymerizing resin. Implant-supported restorations simulating a maxillary first premolar were designed and milled using a CAD/CAM system and divided into 2 groups according to material (n = 16): zirconia (Z) and lithium disilicate (L). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to design (n = 8): hybrid-abutment-crown (ZS, LS) and hybrid-abutment with separate crown (ZC, LC). Each group was subjected to 1.2 million cycles of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading in a dual-axis chewing simulator at 120 N load. Surviving specimens were subjected to quasi-static loading in a universal testing machine. Mode of failure was determined under a low magnification optical microscope. RESULTS: During chewing simulation, 18.8% of zirconia and 43.8% of lithium disilicate restorations failed. The fracture resistance median values ranged from 3,730 N for group ZC, 3,400 N for group ZS, 1,295 N for group LS to 849 N for group LC. Group ZC had a statistically significant higher fracture resistance than groups LC and LS; however, it did not differ significantly from group ZS (p ≤ 0.05). Failures were seen in both titanium bases and ceramic superstructure. CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia and lithium disilicate hybrid implant-supported restorations with short (3 mm) titanium bases failed in a considerable number already during chewing simulation. Therefore, despite their high fracture strength the use in the posterior region should be considered critically. SN - 1600-0501 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30521070/Mechanical_behavior_of_posterior_all_ceramic_hybrid_abutment_crowns_versus_hybrid_abutments_with_separate_crowns_A_laboratory_study_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -