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

Abstract

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.

Clinical outcomes of all‐ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: A systematic review and meta‐analyses

“…All‐ceramic SCs on titanium implants benefit from adhesive luting compared with conventional cementation protocols with increased fracture strengths (Rabel et al, 2018 ). In vitro studies investigating different cement types confirm the positive effect of resin bonding for all‐ceramic restorations on one‐piece zirconia implants and might further increase survival rates (Nueesch et al, 2019 ; Rohr et al, 2018 ). One of the most common risk factors that favor initial inflammation of peri‐implant tissue with subsequent bone loss is cement surpluses (Staubli et al, 2017 ; Wilson, 2009 ).…”

“…Heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%, τ 2 = 0, p = 0.46 Heterogeneity: I 2 = 46%, τ 2 = 0.0057, p = 0.17 Heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%, τ 2 = 0, p = 0.75 further increase survival rates (Nueesch et al, 2019;Rohr et al, 2018).…”

In Vitro Investigation of Material Combinations for Meso- and Suprastructures in a Biomimetic Approach to Restore One-Piece Zirconia Implants

“…Cementation is mandatory to fix the restorations on a one-piece implant. From a mechanical point of view, laboratory testing suggests that monolithic restorations combined with a resin composite cement with high compressive strength should be used for cementing the restoration on the implant abutment [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. The reported five-year survival rates of one-piece ceramic implant-supported single crown reconstructions were 89% for veneered zirconia and 100% for monolithic lithium-disilicate ceramic [ 13 ].…”

In Vitro Investigations in a Biomimetic Approach to Restore One-Piece Zirconia Implants

“…In 2 out of 22 restorations, major occlusal roughness was observed; thus, the authors report a success rate of 90.9% [ 14 ]. Laboratory results testing monolithic solutions for the restoration of one-piece zirconia implants with zirconia, lithium disilicate, and even more elastic materials such as polymer, composite, or polymer-infiltrated ceramic suggest that all tested monolithic materials can be recommended for use on zirconia implants from a mechanical point of view [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], provided that a resin composite cement with high compressive strength is used for cementing the restoration on the abutment [ 16 , 17 , 20 ].…”