Evaluation of debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to abutments of different designs and surface treatments

Khalifa, Ahmed Abdel Latif; Metwally, Nayrouz Adel; Khamis, Mohamed Moataz

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.026

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The design of debonding device used with the Universal Testing Machine (5st, tinius olsen, England) was made specially for the present study, similar to Rohr et al [ 45 ], Khalifa et al [ 46 ] and Ibrahim et al [ 47 ] It was constructed from a long cylinder made of copper and square stainless steel frame to accommodate the crown, with rubber putty inside the device as a shock absorbing material to prevent early fracture of crowns (Fig. 5 b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Ramzy,

Azer,

Khamis

2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In-vitro data from a clinically well-known lithium disilicate ceramic reference was used to assess the expected performance of resin-based materials in implant dentistry. The purpose of the study was to compare the bond strength and marginal adaptation of nano-ceramic hybrid composite crowns cemented to stock cement-retained abutments to lithium disilicate crowns. Methods Twenty abutment analogs were embedded into auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks. The blocks were divided into 2 groups according to the restorative crown material. The 2 groups were divided as follows: Resin nano-ceramic group and lithium disilicate group. Abutment analogs in both groups were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the restorations were designed, manufactured, and cemented with resin cement over the corresponding group. All samples were tested for marginal adaptation and bond strength after storage for 24 hours at 37 °C in 100% humidity. Data were collected, tabulated, and statistically analysed using the appropriate tests. Normality was checked using Shapiro Wilk test and Q-Q plots. Data were normally distributed. Variables were presented using mean, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and standard deviation in addition to median and Inter Quartile Range (IQR). Differences between groups regarding debonding forces was assessed using independent t test. Two Way ANOVA was performed to assess the effect of material and bonding on marginal gap. All tests were two tailed and p value was set at < 0.05. Results Marginal gap and debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of material used (P < .05). Resin nano-ceramic crowns presented lower marginal gap values before (20.80 ± 8.87 μm) and after (52.11 ± 22.92 μm) bonding than lithium disilicate crowns. The debonding force value for resin nano-ceramic crowns (284.30 ± 26.44 N) was significantly higher than that for lithium disilicate crowns (253.30 ± 33.26 N). Adhesive failure mode was detected in all the specimens in both groups. Conclusions The type of material used for implant-supported cement-retained crowns had a statistically significant effect on marginal adaptation and bond strength. Resin nano-ceramic implant-supported cement-retained crowns had better marginal adaptation and higher bond strength than those manufactured using lithium disilicate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Ramzy,

Azer,

Khamis

2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The design of debonding device used with the Universal Testing Machine (5st, tinius olsen, England) was made specially for the present study, similar to Rohr et al [45], Khalifa et al [46] and Ibrahim et al [47] It was constructed from a long cylinder made of copper and square stainless steel frame to accommodate the crown, with rubber putty inside the device as a shock absorbing material to prevent early fracture of crowns (Fig. 5b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Ramzy,

Azer,

Khamis

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Resin-based materials are becoming increasingly popular in implant dentistry even though there is not enough clinical data on the long-term success of such restorations on implant abutments. However, in-vitro data in relation to a clinically well-known lithium disilicate ceramic reference, may help to assess information about the expected performance. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation and bond strength of nano-ceramic hybrid composite crowns cemented to stock cement retained abutments in comparison to those of lithium disilicate. Methods. Twenty abutment analogs were embedded into auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks. The blocks were divided into 2 groups according to the restorative crown material. Abutment analogs in both groups were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the restorations designed, manufactured, and cemented over the corresponding group. All samples were tested for marginal adaptation and bond strength after storage for 24 hours at 37°C in 100% humidity. Results. Marginal gap and debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of material used (P<.05). Resin nano-ceramic crowns (Grandio blocs: VOCO GmbH) presented lower marginal gap values before (20.80±8.87μm) and after (52.11±22.92μm) cementation than lithium disilicate crowns (IPS e.max CAD: ivoclar vivadent). The debonding force value for resin nano-ceramic crowns (284.30±26.44N) was significantly higher than that for lithium disilicate crowns (253.30±33.26N). Adhesive failure mode was detected in all the specimens in both groups. Conclusions. The type of material used for implant-supported cement-retained crowns had a statistically significant effect on the marginal adaptation and bond strength. Resin nano-ceramic implant-supported cement-retained crowns had better marginal adaptation and higher bond strength than those manufactured using lithium disilicate. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Nano-ceramic hybrid composite can be an alternative to lithium disilicate when restoring single unit implant restorations.

show abstract

“…However, straight preparable abutments have been well documented as an alternative to ti-bases. 2,3 The advantages of using preparable abutments is that…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to titanium bases versus preparable abutments

Kordi

Ibrahim

Metwally

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Straight preparable abutments and titanium bases (ti-base) can be used to support single-unit screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported restorations. The choice between using both abutments depends on many factors. Some of which like the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of the lithium disilicate restorations on both abutments has not been determined. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to straight preparable abutments and ti-bases. Methods. Twenty laboratory implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level; Straumann AG) were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10 each) according to the type of the abutment used. Preparable abutment group and CEREC ti-base group. Lithium disilicate crowns were used to restore the specimens. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (from 5 °C to 55 °C for 2000 cycles) followed by cyclic loading (120 000 cycles). The vertical marginal gap between the abutment finish line and the most apical part of the crown was measured in (µm) by using a stereomicroscope after cementation and after thermocycling and cyclic loading. A spectrophotometer was used to evaluate the masking ability of the specimens after cementation. The load required to fracture the crowns was measured in Newtons (N) by using a universal testing machine after thermocycling and cyclic loading. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Comparison between the study groups evaluating the masking ability and fracture resistance was done using independent samples t-test. Significance was set at P < .05. Comparison between the 2 study groups evaluating the marginal adaptation was done by using Mann-Whitney U test. Results. Regarding the masking ability, the color difference (∆E) showed no statistically significant difference between the CEREC group (2.6 ± 0.2) and the preparable abutment group (2.6 ± 0.3) (P = .888). The average of the microgap values (µm) was greater in CEREC group after cementation (13.9 ± 9.2) than preparable group (7.63 ± 1.78) with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .49). After cyclic loading and thermocycling, the average microgap values (µm) was significantly greater in the CEREC group (21.3 ± 7.4) than in preparable group (13.3 ± 1.5) (P = .02). The load required to fracture the specimens was greater in the preparable group (1671.5 ± 143.8) than in the CEREC group (1550.2 ± 157.5) with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .089). Conclusion. The abutments used in the present study did not compromise the masking ability of the screw-retained lithium disilicate implant supported crowns. Moreover, the crowns cemented to preparable abutments had better marginal adaptation and higher fracture resistance when compared to those cemented to CEREC ti-bases.

show abstract

Evaluation of debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to abutments of different designs and surface treatments

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Evaluation of the marginal adaptation and debonding strength of two types of CAD-CAM implant-supported cement-retained crowns

Evaluation of the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to titanium bases versus preparable abutments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About