TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture Resistance of Single-Unit Implant-Supported Crowns: Effects of Prosthetic Design and Restorative Material. AU - Donmez,Mustafa Borga, AU - Diken Turksayar,Almira Ada, AU - Olcay,Emin Orkun, AU - Sahmali,Sevil Meral, Y1 - 2021/08/30/ PY - 2021/08/10/accepted PY - 2021/8/13/pubmed PY - 2022/4/22/medline PY - 2021/8/12/entrez KW - Fracture resistance KW - PEEK KW - implant KW - screw-cement crown SP - 348 EP - 355 JF - Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists JO - J Prosthodont VL - 31 IS - 4 N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the fracture resistance and fracture patterns of single implant-supported crowns with different prosthetic designs and materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and forty-four identical crowns were fabricated from zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), leucite-based (LGC), and lithium disilicate (LDS) glass-ceramics, reinforced composite (RC), translucent zirconia (ZR), and ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone (P). These crowns were divided into 3 subgroups according to restoration design: cementable crowns on a prefabricated titanium abutment, cement-retained crown on a zirconia-titanium base abutment, and screw-cement crown (n = 8). After adhesive cementation, restorations were subjected to thermal-cycling and loaded until fracture. The fracture patterns were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed by using 2-way ANOVA/Bonferroni multiple comparison post hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For each prosthetic design, ZR presented the highest fracture resistance (p ≤ 0.005). Other than the differences with ZLS and RC for screw-cement crowns (p > 0.05) and RC for crowns on zirconia-titanium base abutments (p > 0.05), LGC showed the lowest fracture resistance. P endured higher loads than LDS (p < 0.001), except for the crowns on zirconia-titanium base abutments (p > 0.05). Cementable crowns presented the highest fracture resistance (p < 0.001), other than LGC and LDS. The differences between LGC crowns (p > 0.05) or LDS crowns on prefabricated titanium and zirconia-titanium abutments were nonsignificant (p = 0.133). Fragmented crown fracture was predominant in most of the restorations. Screw and abutment fractures were observed in ZR screw-cement crowns, and all P crowns were separated from the abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative material and restoration design affect the fracture resistance and fracture pattern of implant-supported single-unit restorations. Clinicians may restore single-unit implants in premolar sites with the materials and prosthetic designs tested in the present study. SN - 1532-849X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/34383979/Fracture_Resistance_of_Single_Unit_Implant_Supported_Crowns:_Effects_of_Prosthetic_Design_and_Restorative_Material_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -