Load to failure of different zirconia implant abutments with titanium components

Mascarenhas, Faye; Yılmaz, Burak; McGlumphy, Edwin A.; Clelland, Nancy L.; Seidt, Jeremy D.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.008

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The length of the superstructure (11.5 mm), short titanium base (3 mm), platform switching design and 2 mm exposure of the implant shoulder (as recommended by ISO standard 14801 for testing implant abutments), simulated a worst‐case scenario of loading and thus created a great lever arm force at the implant‐base connection leading to bending and eventually fractures at the buccal shoulder of the titanium bases. These findings were in agreement with some studies (Guilherme, Chung, et al, ; Mascarenhas et al, ). The loading factors used in this study might underestimate the potential of such restorations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…These findings can be attributed to the titanium base design and material properties. The longer the moment arm, the greater the bending moment (Mascarenhas, Yilmaz, McGlumphy, Clelland, & Seidt, 2017 with some studies Mascarenhas et al, 2017). The loading factors used in this study might underestimate the potential of such restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…These findings can be attributed to the titanium base design and material properties. The longer the moment arm, the greater the bending moment (Mascarenhas, Yilmaz, McGlumphy, Clelland, & Seidt, ). The length of the superstructure (11.5 mm), short titanium base (3 mm), platform switching design and 2 mm exposure of the implant shoulder (as recommended by ISO standard 14801 for testing implant abutments), simulated a worst‐case scenario of loading and thus created a great lever arm force at the implant‐base connection leading to bending and eventually fractures at the buccal shoulder of the titanium bases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Nouh

Kern

Sabet

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance, fracture resistance and mode of failure of posterior hybrid‐abutment‐crown vs. hybrid‐abutment with separate crown, both bonded to short titanium bases. Materials and Methods Thirty‐two titanium implants were embedded perpendicularly in auto‐polymerizing resin. Implant‐supported restorations simulating a maxillary first premolar were designed and milled using a CAD/CAM system and divided into 2 groups according to material (n = 16): zirconia (Z) and lithium disilicate (L). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to design (n = 8): hybrid‐abutment‐crown (ZS, LS) and hybrid‐abutment with separate crown (ZC, LC). Each group was subjected to 1.2 million cycles of thermo‐mechanical fatigue loading in a dual‐axis chewing simulator at 120 N load. Surviving specimens were subjected to quasi‐static loading in a universal testing machine. Mode of failure was determined under a low magnification optical microscope. Results During chewing simulation, 18.8% of zirconia and 43.8% of lithium disilicate restorations failed. The fracture resistance median values ranged from 3,730 N for group ZC, 3,400 N for group ZS, 1,295 N for group LS to 849 N for group LC. Group ZC had a statistically significant higher fracture resistance than groups LC and LS; however, it did not differ significantly from group ZS (p ≤ 0.05). Failures were seen in both titanium bases and ceramic superstructure. Conclusions Zirconia and lithium disilicate hybrid implant‐supported restorations with short (3 mm) titanium bases failed in a considerable number already during chewing simulation. Therefore, despite their high fracture strength the use in the posterior region should be considered critically.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…These findings can be attributed to the titanium base design and material properties. The longer the moment arm, the greater the bending moment (Mascarenhas, Yilmaz, McGlumphy, Clelland, & Seidt, 2017 with some studies Mascarenhas et al, 2017). The loading factors used in this study might underestimate the potential of such restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…These findings can be attributed to the titanium base design and material properties. The longer the moment arm, the greater the bending moment (Mascarenhas, Yilmaz, McGlumphy, Clelland, & Seidt, ). The length of the superstructure (11.5 mm), short titanium base (3 mm), platform switching design and 2 mm exposure of the implant shoulder (as recommended by ISO standard 14801 for testing implant abutments), simulated a worst‐case scenario of loading and thus created a great lever arm force at the implant‐base connection leading to bending and eventually fractures at the buccal shoulder of the titanium bases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical behavior of posterior all‐ceramic hybrid‐abutment‐crowns versus hybrid‐abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study

Nouh

Kern

Sabet

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could clarify that why the all ceramic restorations (high modulus of elasticity) could redistribute the stresses more evenly to the implant fixture when compared to the other restorations. (29). One of the important approach on clinical practice to preserve the soft tissue integrity and improving the peri-implantitis treatment is decreasing bacterial adhesion and consequently biofilm formation on implant abutment surface.…”

Section: Discussion:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological Complication of Implant Abutment Materials.

Radwan¹,

Mokhtar²,

Elnagar³

et al. 2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The goal of this review was to identify the biological complication of implant abutment materials in relative to alveolar bone around implant supported superstructure. Methodology: An electronic database search and further a manual searching was directed to detect RCTs, and cohort studies that give evidence about different abutment materials complication. Pocket depth, amount of rescission and crestal bone loss were attributed to alveolar bone loss. Results: fourteen clinical studies were detected from an initial search of 107 studies and the extraction of the analyzing data were tabled according to complication output. Pocket probing depth were documented in eight studies, PPD around Zirconium implant abutments was 3.2 mm versus 3.4 mm for Titanium abutment. Five studies examined the recession index for Zirconium and Titanium implant abutments. The RI ranged from 0 to 0.4 at Titanium implant abutments and 0 to 0.3 at Zirconium implant abutments. For the alveolar loss around Zirconia implant abutment was stated to differ from 0.2-1.48 and 0.3-1.43mm at Titanium abutments. Conclusion: The data reported in this systematic review did not give an evidence for the complication regarding all ceramic versus metallic implant abutment. However, it can be concluded that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute decision for the choice of ceramic or metallic as implant abutment material relative to alveolar bone response. The meta-analysis presented a statistically significant difference between abutment material with superiority for the all ceramic abutments over metallic abutment

show abstract

“…Der Zirkonoxidaufbau wird in der Regel mit der Titanbasis verklebt, kann aber auch über Friktion (friction fit oder titanium ring friction fit) mit der Titanbasis verbunden werden [12,13]. Die adhäsiv verklebten Abutments zeigen jedoch höhere Bruchlastwerte nach Belastung im Kausimulator als die mit Friktion verbundenen zweiteiligen Abutments [13]. Zudem kann sich der Zirkonoxidaufbau von der Titanbasis lösen, wenn er nur über Friktion verbunden wird [13].…”

Section: Eigenschaften Des Zirkonoxidaufbausunclassified