Fracture resistance of different metal substructure designs for implant-supported porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns

Abstract Background/purpose This study evaluated the fracture resistance of different metal substructure designs for implant-supported porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns. Materials and methods Eighteen PFM crowns were fabricated using different metal substructure designs and were conventionally cemented on an implant abutment analog. The crowns were divided according to the metal substructure design for manufacturing the metal framework into three groups of six specimens each: Group A had a minimum required thickness; Group B had a conventional design; and Group C had a wrinkled design. After applying a load of 200 N at a frequency of 2 Hz with 300,000 cycles of dynamic loading, all specimens were tested for fracture resistance using compression loading on the buccal functional cusp. Results Among these three groups, Groups A and B, respectively, had the minimum and maximum fracture resistance strengths. Respective data for Groups A, B, and C were 111.13 ± 27.15 kg, 236.13 ± 39.21 kg, and 188.63 ± 12.10 kg. Statistically significant differences were observed among the three groups (P  Conclusion These results confirm that the conventional design had the best fracture resistance, and an excessively thick porcelain layer can cause crown fracture. However, there was no obvious proof that the wrinkled design had better fracture resistance than the conventional design. Therefore, the theory that PFM can provide better support requires further corroboration.

[1]  M. Zwahlen,et al.  Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  B. Brown,et al.  Concepts and Techniques , 1983 .

[3]  Anthony G. Evans,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Bending Strengths for Brittle Solids: A Multiaxial Fracture Problem , 1983 .

[4]  V. Thompson,et al.  Fracture of Porcelain-veneered Structures in Fatigue , 2007, Journal of dental research.

[5]  Evolution of subsurface radial cracks in bi-material structures undergoing indentation loading , 2007 .

[6]  K H Kunzelmann,et al.  Effects of surface finish and fatigue testing on the fracture strength of CAD-CAM and pressed-ceramic crowns. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  Sumiya Hobo,et al.  Preparation design and margin distortion in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. 1973. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  I. Shoher,et al.  Reinforced porcelain system: a new concept in ceramometal restorations. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  G. Marshall,et al.  Metal ceramic compatibility: a review of the literature. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  S. Rosenstiel,et al.  Effect of Ion Exchange on the Microstructure, Strength, and Thermal Expansion Behavior of a Leucite-reinforced Porcelain , 1998, Journal of dental research.

[11]  P. Branemark Osseointegration and its experimental background. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  B. Lawn,et al.  Lifetime-limiting Strength Degradation from Contact Fatigue in Dental Ceramics , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[13]  T. Taylor,et al.  In vitro effect of load cycling on metal-ceramic cement- and screw-retained implant restorations. , 2007, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.