Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns

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

“…Fracture lines were similar in the PV groups of both crown materials (LS 2 and ZrO 2 ) and showed a clear pattern through the central fissure with crown thickness of 2 mm in this region, while no fracture was observed around or including the palatal venting hole. Although fracture patterns for vented all-ceramic crowns have not been described previously, common fracture patterns along the mesial-distal fissure line support our findings and were described for non-vented CAD/CAM restorations made from LS 2 (Mores et al, 2017;Rosentritt, Hahnel, Engelhardt, Behr & Preis, 2017), zirconia-reinforced LS 2 , hybrid ceramics (Rohr, Coldea, Zitzmann & Fischer, 2015;Rosentritt et al, 2017), resin-based nanoceramics (Bonfante et al, 2015;Rosentritt et al, 2017), or zirconia (Aboushelib, de Jager, Kleverlaan & Feilzer, 2007;Oilo et al, 2016).…”

Survival Probability, Weibull Characteristics, Stress Distribution, and Fractographic Analysis of Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic Network Restorations Cemented on a Chairside Titanium Base: An In Vitro and In Silico Study

“…PICs also have a hardness value between dentin and enamel [11], a maximum fracture load near 2000 N [13], and longitudinal clinical reports with high success rates [14,15]. In observing implant-supported prosthesis, the manufacture of metal-ceramic restorations is defined as the gold standard for prosthetic rehabilitation [16]. However, the monolithic crowns in PIC appear to be a reliable option [16].…”

Resin composite repair for implant‐supported crowns

“…This class of materials is characterized by the presence of polymeric matrices containing predominantly inorganic refractory compounds that may include glasses, ceramics, and glass ceramics . These materials are claimed to have more resiliency compared to ceramics, are easier to mill during computer assisted machining, more easily abraded for occlusal adjustments relative to ceramics, and have shown promising results in preclinical studies involving sliding fatigue testing when compared to metal ceramics for implant‐supported crowns …”

“…13 These materials are claimed to have more resiliency compared to ceramics, 14,15 are easier to mill during computer assisted machining, more easily abraded for occlusal adjustments relative to ceramics, and have shown promising results in preclinical studies involving sliding fatigue testing when compared to metal ceramics for implant-supported crowns. [16][17][18] On the other hand, after milling resin-matrix ceramic materials, the final esthetics may be limited considering that the blocks are usually monochromatic. Potential workarounds include staining, which is restricted to the outer layer, or milling an undersized prosthesis which is then hand-layered with resin composites of several shades and/or achromatic to achieve final anatomy and esthetics.…”