Fracture behavior, marginal gap width, and marginal quality of vented or pre‐cemented <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> all‐ceramic crowns luted on Y‐<scp>TZP</scp> implants

Zaugg, Lucia K.; Meyer, Simon; Rohr, Nadja; Zehnder, Isabella; Zitzmann, Nicola U.

doi:10.1111/clr.13075

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To avoid the need of veneering, monolithic restorations might be considered. In laboratory studies, monolithic zirconia displayed a high fracture resistance irrespective of the cement applied [10,11]. This finding is supported for zirconia crowns on titanium [12], steel [13] and composite resin bases [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Further, laboratory results testing specific monolithic solutions for the prosthetic treatment of zirconia implants with more elastic materials such as polymer, composite or polymer-infiltrated ceramic are available [10,11,17]. The in-vitro fracture load of polymer-infiltrated ceramic on zirconia implants has been rated sufficient to withstand loads in the molar region if the restoration is fixed with an adhesive cement with a high compressive strength that is able to increase the loading capacity of the system [10,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to differences in test set-ups, the retrieved fracture load [10][11][12][13][14][17][18][19][20] or retention force [21,22] values can vary greatly for the respective materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To test three potential prosthetic material options for zirconia implants in regard to their mechanical properties, loading and retention capacity as well as to record abrasion after chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. METHODS Molar crowns (n = 96) of three different computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials were produced and cemented on zirconia implants (ceramic.implant, Vita) with a diameter of 4.5 mm. Monolithic zirconia (Vita YZ [YZ] with RelyX Unicem 2 Automix [RUN], polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic [VE]) with Vita Adiva F-Cem [VAF] and acrylate polymer (CAD Temp [CT]) with RelyX Ultimate [RUL]. Fracture load and retentive force of the crowns were measured after 24 h water storage at 37°C and after a chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. Abrasion was recorded by matching stereolithography-data of the crowns obtained before and after chewing simulation. Additionally, the mechanical properties and bonding capabilities of the crown and cement materials were assessed. RESULTS Fracture load values were significantly highest for YZ > VE = CT. Retention force values did not differ significantly between the materials. The aging procedure did not affect the fracture load values nor the retention force significantly. Abrasion depth of the crowns was lowest for YZ followed by VE and CT. On unpolished crowns, abrasion of YZ and VE tended to be higher than on polished specimens. CONCLUSIONS Based on the obtained in-vitro results, all tested materials can be recommended for the use on zirconia implants, although CT is only approved for temporary crowns. The loading and retention capacity of the materials were not significantly affected by aging.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To simplify pretreatment of the tooth substance, self-adhesive resin cements were introduced, which bond to the substrate without pretreatment with a bonding agent. Zaugg, Meyer, Rohr, Zehnder, and Zitzmann (2018) could show, that crown venting of lithium disilicate and zirconium dioxide crowns cemented to zirconia implants did not affect the fracture load when using an adhesive cement or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Zaugg et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zaugg, Meyer, Rohr, Zehnder, and Zitzmann () could show, that crown venting of lithium disilicate and zirconium dioxide crowns cemented to zirconia implants did not affect the fracture load when using an adhesive cement or a resin‐modified glass ionomer cement (Zaugg et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Nueesch

Conejo

Mante

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study evaluated the loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements. Material and methods Fifty one‐piece zirconia implants were embedded in epoxy resin. The abutment aspect of one implant was optically scanned and a standardized upper canine was designed with CAD‐software. Fifty feldspathic ceramic crowns were milled, polished, and mounted on the implants either without any cement, with a temporary cement or with three different composite resin cements after surface pretreatment as recommended by the manufacturers (n = 10). After storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hr, specimens were loaded until fracture on the palatal surface of the crown at an angle of 45° to the long axis of the implant and loads until fracture were detected and compared. Compressive strength of the investigated cement materials was determined. Statistical analyses were done with One‐way ANOVA followed by post hoc Fisher LSD test (α = 0.05). Results The cements revealed significantly different compressive strength values (temporary cement: 37.1 ± 7.0 MPa; composite resin cements: 185.8 ± 21.3, 277.9 ± 22.1, and 389.0 ± 13.6 MPa, respectively). Load‐at‐fracture values had an overall mean value of 237.1 ± 58.2 N with no significant difference among the composite resin cements (p > 0.05). Fracture load values with the temporary cement or without cement were significantly lower (p < 0.002). Conclusions CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants provide sufficient resistance to intraoral forces.

show abstract

Effect of repeated ultrasonic instrumentation on single-unit crowns: a laboratory study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fracture behavior, marginal gap width, and marginal quality of vented or pre‐cemented CAD/CAM all‐ceramic crowns luted on Y‐TZP implants

Abstract: Crown venting of lithium disilicate and zirconium dioxide crowns did not affect the fracture load and patterns. Complete cement removal was rare, and the observed particle ablation requires further clinical attention, particularly with submucosal margins.

Cited by 16 publications

References 55 publications

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Effect of repeated ultrasonic instrumentation on single-unit crowns: a laboratory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About