Fracture Strength of Monolithic All-Ceramic Crowns on Titanium Implant Abutments.

PURPOSE The fracture strengths of all-ceramic crowns cemented on titanium implant abutments may vary depending on crown materials and luting agents. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in fracture strength among crowns cemented on implant abutments using crowns made of seven different monolithic ceramic materials and five different luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS In total, 525 crowns (75 each of Vita Mark II, feldspathic ceramic [FSC]; Ivoclar Empress CAD, leucite-reinforced glass ceramic [LrGC]; Ivoclar e.max CAD, lithium disilicate [LiDS]; Vita Suprinity, presintered zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic [PSZirLS]; Vita Enamic, polymer-reinforced fine-structure feldspathic ceramic [PolyFSP], Lava Ultimate; resin nanoceramic [ResNC], Celtra Duo; fully crystallized zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate [FcZirLS]) were milled using a CAD/CAM system. The inner surfaces of the crowns were etched and silanized. Titanium implant abutments were fixed on implant analogs, and airborne-particle abrasion was used on their exterior specific adhesion surfaces (Al2O3, 50 μm). Then, the abutments were degreased and silanized. The crowns were cemented on the implant abutments using five luting agents (Multilink Implant, Variolink II, RelyX Unicem, GC FujiCEM, Panavia 2.0). After thermocycling for 5,000 cycles (5 to 55°C, 30 seconds dwell time), the crowns were subjected to fracture strength testing under static load using a universal testing machine. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance (α = .0002) and the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS No significant difference among the luting agents was found using the different all-ceramic materials. Ceramic materials LiDS, PSZirLS, PolyFSP, and ResNC showed significantly higher fracture strength values compared with FSC, FcZirLS, and LrGC. The PSZirLS especially showed significantly better results. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, fracture strength was not differentially affected by the various luting agents. However, the fracture strength was significantly higher for PSZirLS, PolyFSP, ResNC, and LiDS ceramics than for the FSP, LrGC, and the FcZirLS ceramic with all luting agents tested.

[1]  Xiaohua Hu,et al.  The R-curve behavior and thermal shock resistance for Al2O3 + ZrO2 laminated nanoceramics. , 2014, Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

[2]  B. Lawn,et al.  Edge chipping and flexural resistance of monolithic ceramics. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[3]  Jack I Nicholls,et al.  Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. , 2010, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Pascal Magne,et al.  In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. , 2010, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  Ç. Ural,et al.  In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in five ceramic restoration fabricating techniques. , 2010, Quintessence international.

[6]  M. Kern,et al.  Dynamic fatigue and fracture resistance of non-retentive all-ceramic full-coverage molar restorations. Influence of ceramic material and preparation design. , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[7]  G. Heydecke,et al.  Influence of thermomechanical fatigue loading on the fracture resistance of all-ceramic posterior crowns. , 2010, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[8]  Paulo G Coelho,et al.  Monolithic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate versus veneered Y-TZP crowns: comparison of failure modes and reliability after fatigue. , 2010, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[9]  P. Magne,et al.  Influence of overlay restorative materials and load cusps on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars. , 2009, Quintessence international.

[10]  B. Willershausen,et al.  Influence of different luting concepts on long term retentive strength of zirconia crowns. , 2009, American journal of dentistry.

[11]  M. Bickel,et al.  CAD/CAM to fabricate ceramic implant abutments and crowns: a preliminary in vitro study. , 2009, Australian dental journal.

[12]  K. Hiller,et al.  Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with different luting techniques and materials. , 2008, Operative dentistry.

[13]  W. Mörmann,et al.  Strength of CAD/CAM-generated esthetic ceramic molar implant crowns. , 2008, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[14]  Irena Sailer,et al.  Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. , 2007, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  L. Gauckler,et al.  Prospective clinical study of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. , 2006, Quintessence international.

[16]  Andreas Bindl,et al.  Strength and fracture pattern of monolithic CAD/CAM-generated posterior crowns. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[17]  M. Wichmann,et al.  The aesthetics of all-ceramic veneered and monolithic CAD/CAM crowns. , 2005, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[18]  V. Ferrario,et al.  Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. , 2004, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[19]  J R Kelly,et al.  Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  M Atsuta,et al.  Effect of different etching periods on the bond strength of a composite resin to a machinable porcelain. , 1998, Journal of dentistry.

[21]  D. W. Jones.  Development of dental ceramics. An historical perspective. , 1985, Dental clinics of North America.

[22]  J. L. Lui.  The effect of firing shrinkage on the marginal fit of porcelain jacket crowns , 1980, British Dental Journal.