Fracture resistance of all ceramic crowns supported by zirconia and alumina versus titanium implant abutments

El-S'adany, A.F.; Masoud, GaberI; Kamel, M.S.; Korsel, Amany M.

doi:10.1016/j.tdj.2013.11.001

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(64) Furthermore, the effect of the abutment on the fracture resistance of all ceramic implant supported restoration was previously documented in the literature. (28,29,39,65) Wider zirconia abutments have higher fracture resistance than narrower ones as mentioned by many authors. (66,67) Additionally, Schepke et al (12) mentioned that stock abutments have a naturally smaller retention surface than the customized ones.…”

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 92%

“…(9) Many authors reported that all ceramic abutments made of alumina had unfavorable behavior after aging and possessed less favorable properties than zirconia and titanium abutments. (39) Yildrim et al (40) concluded that fracture resistance in zirconia abutment group was more than twice that in alumina group. Additionally, zirconia abutments had a cumulative survival rate of 100% after observation periods between 4 and 6 years (6,41) .…”

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for singletooth implants in canine and posterior regions, Zembic et al (42) reported that at 3 years, zirconia and titanium abutments exhibited same survival and technical, biological and esthetical outcomes. Because of the increased mechanical strength and survival rate,it has been suggested to use zirconia instead of alumina as implant abutment material (9,39) , hence,zirconia was the abutment material of choice in this study.…”

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the ceramic crowns in this study were cemented to ready and custom made zirconia abutments using adhesive resin cement as performed by a group of researchers. (11,12,15,(20)(21)(22)(23)26,27,39) Exposure to water was found to affect the mechanical properties of all ceramic restorations. (59) Furthermore, temperature changes led slow flaw propagation.…”

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fracture Resistance of Cad/Cam Fabricated Implant - Supported All - Ceramic Crowns Cemented on Ready and Custom Made Zirconia Abutments

Sallam¹

2017

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of the problem: Despite their outstanding esthetic characteristics, the adequacy of implant-supported all-ceramic crowns under occlusal loads in the posterior segment of the jaw remains questionable. Aim of the study: Evaluation of the fracture resistance of different CAD/CAM fabricated implant-supported all-ceramic monolithic posterior crowns cemented on ready and custom made zirconia abutments. Materials and methods: 30 internal connection titanium dummy implants were embedded in epoxy resin and randomly divided into three groups (n=10 each) according to the crown material used; Group I: Polycrystalline ceramic (Katana Zirconia), Group II: Hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) and Group III: Lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max CAD).All crowns were CAD/CAM fabricated as monolithic maxillary right first premolar.In each group, five crowns were cemented on ready made zirconia abutments (subgroup A) while the other five were cemented on custom made zirconia abutments (subgroup B). All samples were thermocycled (5 o to 55 o ,10 seconds dwell time) then compressively loaded under axial static load till fracture using a universal testing machine with a loadcell of 5 kN at a cross-head speed of 1mm/min. The load required to fracture was recorded in Newton and failure modes were visually analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed by Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test.(P ≤ 0.05) Results: Fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic monolithic posterior crowns was statistically significantly affected by the ceramic crown material and abutment type (P<0.001). Either with ready or custom-made zirconia abutments; zirconia crowns recorded the statistically significantly highest fracture resistance mean value followed by IPS e.max CAD ones while Vita Enamic crowns recorded the lowest values with no statistically significant difference between them and IPS e.max CAD crowns. Zirconia and Vita Enamic crowns cemented on custom made abutments recorded statistically significantly higher mean fracture resistance values than those cemented on ready made one. However, IPS e.max Cad crowns cemented on both abutment types showed statistically insignificant difference. Different failure modes were observed among the tested ceramic crowns without fracture of any abutment.

show abstract

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implant-supported All-ceramic Monolithic Posterior Crowns Cementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fracture Resistance of Cad/Cam Fabricated Implant - Supported All - Ceramic Crowns Cemented on Ready and Custom Made Zirconia Abutments

Sallam¹

2017

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, the evaluation of the toxicity of nanostructures on bone is a very important field of nanotoxicology. Alumina is one of the inert biomaterials used in implants [ 22 , 23 ]. It is, therefore, a biodegradable material, well-tolerated by the biological environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Toxicity and Histological Effects of Al2O3 Nanoparticles on Bone Tissue in Animal Model: A Case-Control Study

Soltaninejad

Zare‐Zardini

Hamidieh

et al. 2020

Journal of Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The applications of nanostructures have been limited by their different toxicities. So, the investigation of these toxicities is necessary before nanostructure application. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) nanoparticles on bone density in Wistar rat. Al2O3 nanoparticle was prepared by the sol-gel method. Characterization was done by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Sixty-four male adult Wistar rats were divided into eight groups including six groups intravenously treated with Al2O3 nanoparticle at concentrations of 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 µg/ml: one group received food and water as the control group, and one group received food and water as well as intravenously distilled water as an injection control group. After 41 days, bone density was analyzed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). According to X-ray diffraction, the average particle size for Al2O3 nanoparticles was 20.85 nm. The data of densitometry showed that the bone density of right and left foot was reduced in concentrations of 250, 500, and 1000 µg/ml that were statistically significant in comparison with the control group. The reduction of bone density was increased with the enhancement of nanostructures concentration. The effect of Al2O3 nanoparticles on bone density was similar in the left and right legs. Histopatholological assessment also showed that Al2O3 nanoparticles (250, 500, and 1000 µg/ml) lead to significant reduction of trabeculae. Empty lacunae are observed in these three groups. Considering that high concentrations of Al2O3 nanoparticles had toxicity on bone tissue, it must be used by more caution, especially its use as a coating in different devices such as implants, surgical instruments, and bone prostheses.

show abstract

Effects of two surface finishes on the color of cemented and colored anatomic-contour zirconia crowns

Lee

Feng

et al. 2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fracture resistance of all ceramic crowns supported by zirconia and alumina versus titanium implant abutments

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Fracture Resistance of Cad/Cam Fabricated Implant - Supported All - Ceramic Crowns Cemented on Ready and Custom Made Zirconia Abutments

Fracture Resistance of Cad/Cam Fabricated Implant - Supported All - Ceramic Crowns Cemented on Ready and Custom Made Zirconia Abutments

Evaluating the Toxicity and Histological Effects of Al2O3 Nanoparticles on Bone Tissue in Animal Model: A Case-Control Study

Effects of two surface finishes on the color of cemented and colored anatomic-contour zirconia crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About