Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Mechanical Responses of Asphalt Mixtures under Uniform and Non-Uniform Loads Using Microscale Finite Element Simulation
Next Article in Special Issue
Improvement in Fatigue Behavior of Dental Implant Fixtures by Changing Internal Connection Design: An In Vitro Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Bonding between Asphalt Concrete Layer under Water and Salt Erosion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Liner-Bonding of Implant-Supported Glass–Ceramic Crown to Zirconia Abutment on Bond Strength and Fracture Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 12
Issue 19
10.3390/ma12193056
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Load-Bearing Capacity of Zirconia Crowns Screwed to Multi-Unit Abutments with and without a Titanium Base: An In Vitro Pilot Study

by
Hadas Heller
1,
Adi Arieli
1,
Ilan Beitlitum
2,
Raphael Pilo
1 and
Shifra Levartovsky
1,*
1
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
2
Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2019, 12(19), 3056; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056
Submission received: 23 August 2019 / Revised: 13 September 2019 / Accepted: 17 September 2019 / Published: 20 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implant Materials 2019)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The static and dynamic load-bearing capacities and failure modes of zirconia crowns screwed to multi-unit abutments (MUAs) with and without a titanium base (T-base) were determined. Thirty-six monolithic zirconia crowns screwed to straight MUAs torqued to laboratory analogs (30 Ncm) were assigned to two groups (n = 18). In group A, the zirconia crowns were screwed directly to the MUAs; in group B, the zirconia crowns were cemented to the T-base and screwed to the MUAs. All specimens were aged in 100% humidity (37 °C) for one month and subjected to thermocycling (20,000 cycles). Afterwards, the specimens underwent static and dynamic loading tests following ISO 14801. The failure modes were evaluated by stereomicroscopy (20×). There was an unequivocally similar trend in the S-N plots of both specimen groups. The load at which the specimens survived 5,000,000 cycles was 250 N for both groups. Group A failed mainly within the metal, and zirconia failure occurred only at a high loading force. Group B exhibited failure within the metal mostly in conjunction with adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base. Zirconia restoration screwed directly to an MUA is a viable option, but further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

1. Introduction

As esthetic demands in dentistry increase, porcelain fused to metal has become more frequently substituted with zirconia-based ceramic for teeth and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) [1]. With the introduction of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies and the development of yttrium oxide partially stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (Y-TZP), bilaminar or preferably monolithic zirconia structures have become the material of choice. Monolithic zirconia restorations demonstrate a high flexural strength (900–1200 MPa) and fracture toughness (9–10 Mpa m0.5) compared to those of other ceramic materials and exhibit minimal wear of the antagonist teeth [2,3].
Implant-supported prostheses are utilized via two methods of retention; they are either screw-retained or cement-retained. Both modalities have benefits and shortcomings in clinical application [4]. In recent years, with the increased risk of implant loss due to biological complications such as peri-implantitis, which is associated mainly with cemented implant restorations, the advantages of retrievability as well as accessibility for maintenance and replacement have accelerated the use of screw-retained implant restorations. Due to these reasons and their apparently higher biological compatibility, the screw-retained modalities are currently preferable [5,6,7,8]. When connecting several implants with a screw-retained implant restoration, there is a need for an interim part, a multi-unit abutment (MUA), to correct the differences in implant angles and to create a common path of insertion. The first MUA was introduced for the Branemark implant system and was configured as a two-piece titanium abutment cylinder [9]. Currently, a one-piece abutment, which can be straight or angled, is commonly used. These definitive MUAs enable better hemidesmosomal adherence between the soft tissue and titanium and therefore might reduce bone resorption around the implants [10,11,12]. This “one abutment at one time” concept is especially advantageous in immediately restored implants for partial and full edentulous cases, whereas non removal of the multi-unit abutments placed at the time of surgery results in a statistically significant reduction in crestal bone resorption around the implants [11].
The high demand for aesthetic outcomes, combined with new material technologies and the need for retrievability in implant-supported FDPs, has led to an increased use of screwed monolithic zirconia implant-supported restorations. Usually, this type of zirconia is cemented to a milled titanium sleeve (T-base) and then screwed to the MUA (screwed-cemented type of restoration). This design was suggested by McGlumphy et al. [13], Rajan and Gunaseelan [14], and Uludag and Celik [15] and is known as “the combination implant crown”. Hussien et al. [16] showed that this type of combination (screwed-cemented) does not affect the fatigue failure load of monolithic zirconia, monolithic lithium disilicate, or veneered zirconia ceramic crowns when compared to cemented crowns. Moreover, significantly higher fatigue failure loads have been recorded for monolithic zirconia crowns than for the other two types of crowns [16]. The retention of monolithic zirconia copings to the T-base might be the weakest link of this type of screwed-cemented restoration; therefore, a reliable bond between the zirconia, cement, and T-base is essential for the longevity of the restoration [17,18].
In contrast to the screwed-cemented restoration, there is another mode of retention of monolithic zirconia crowns to MUAs: Screwing the zirconia directly to the MUA (screwed restoration) without the use of a T-base, thus avoiding the dependence on the cemented joint between the zirconia and the titanium. Although restorations with zirconia crowns attached to MUAs with and without titanium bases are widely used by clinicians, there is no evidence-based data to favor either of these approaches; moreover, no research study has compared the mechanical failure between the two methods. Some believe that the titanium base is vital for the survival of the zirconia restoration, while others are concerned with the detrimental impact of the cement that is placed between the zirconia and the titanium base.
The aim of the current study was to compare the static and dynamic load-bearing capacities and determine the failure mode of 3Y-TZP (zirconia) crowns screwed to MUAs with and without a T-base. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in either the failure load or the failure mode between the two groups.

2. Results

Table 1 presents the results of the static load compressive test for three specimens of each group. From the mean maximal failure load, the 80% level load was set for the start of the dynamic test. The 80% level set for group A was slightly higher than that for group B.
The stress-number of cycles (S-N) curve results, as well as the failure modes, are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 for group A (screwed restoration) and group B (screwed-cemented restoration), respectively. In both groups, when the applied load was equal to 250 N, the three specimens tested (samples 13–15) remained intact after five million cycles (Table 2 and Table 3). The S-N curves for both groups are presented in Figure 1. However, despite the small number of samples, an unequivocally similar trend of both specimen groups on the S-N plot, could be noted.
Stereomicroscopic examination of the failure mode of all the specimens revealed differences between the groups (Table 2 and Table 3). Group A exhibited mainly failure within the metal (MUA/screw), and zirconia failure occurred only at a high loading force. The representative failure photographs are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Figure 2 shows deformation and fracturing within the cone of the MUA, and Figure 3 shows fracturing of the zirconia concomitantly with bending of the restoration screw head. Group B exhibited failure within the metal (the cone of the MUA/the restoration screw head), mostly in conjunction with adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base. Figure 4 shows adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base in addition to fracturing within the MUA cone, which was the predominant failure mode in group B.

3. Discussion

Numerous studies have evaluated the fracture strength of different abutments for cemented implant restorations. No available data exists on the fracture strength of screwed implant restorations connected to MUAs, even though these types of restorations have gained popularity with the increased use of immediate loading of multiple implants.
The current study compared the static and dynamic load-bearing capacities and determined the failure mode of zirconia crowns screwed to MUAs with and without a T-base, an issue that has not yet been addressed in the literature. Our null hypothesis was partially proven because both groups demonstrated that three specimens survived 5,000,000 cycles, according to International Standard (ISO) 14801, at 250 N. This result may indicate that the two modes of retention (with and without a T-base) have no effect on the mechanical performance of the prosthesis under cyclic loading.
The range of human biting forces is 50–300 N in normal chewing as opposed to 175–800 N for maximum voluntary biting forces [19,20,21]. These values are highly dependent on the measurement tools, mainly strain gauges, piezo-electric sensors, and pressure sheets. In the current study, the occlusal forces range from 250 N to 550 N, but the specimens survived 5,000,000 cycles only at 250 N. Indeed, the 250 N value fits well within the range of normal chewing forces but should be interpreted with caution because this value is valid for the specific configuration of the current study design. The conclusion that zirconia screw-type prostheses, with and without a titanium base, are equally adequate for implant-supported prostheses with MUAs must be based on the unequivocally similar trend in the S-N plots of both specimen groups and not on the 250 N value.
On the other hand, the failure modes differ between the groups. Metal failure (MUA/screw) was demonstrated in both groups; however, in group A (screwed), zirconia failure was also observed, mainly at high loading forces. This pattern was not observed in group B (screwed-cemented). With the latter failure pattern, which included metal failure, most specimens exhibited an adhesive mode of failure between the cement and zirconia. In this study, we used 3Y-TZP, although a newer form of zirconia material with better translucency (5Y-TZP) has been introduced. Research has shown that 3Y-TZP has significantly higher flexural strength than that of 5Y-TZP [22]. Our purpose in the current study was to compare both restorations for posterior clinical use; in that case, 3Y-TZP was preferred.
This research was performed according to ISO standard 14801 because the international standard requires that stress is exerted on the implant-abutment-restoration complex in the “worst-case” scenario loading situation [23]. In addition, the ISO standard established a methodology that can be replicated by other researchers studying the same subject. Studies applying dynamic loading tests do not always comply with ISO 14801. Koyama et al. [24] and Ding et al. [25] used the “staircase method” to determine the mean cyclic fatigue force in accordance with the current study. However, Duan et al. [26] used variable loading amplitude, and each specimen was subjected to increasing load amplitude over time and thus experienced multiple load amplitudes. Shemtov-Yona and Rittel [27] suggested a new method for the dynamic loading test based on random spectrum loading, noting that the ISO 14801 protocol is questionable for statistical analysis.
In the screwed-cemented implant-supported restoration, the impact of oral fluids on the solubility of the luting cement and the retention of the restoration is always of concern. To simulate the oral cavity environment, artificial aging, such as water storage and thermocycling, is performed. In the current study, an aging protocol of storage at 37 °C under 100% humidity for one month, followed by thermal cycling, was conducted. Naumova et al. [28] and Güngör and Nemli [29] investigated the effect of various resin cements on the retentive strength of zirconia abutments bonded to titanium inserts (T-bases). Both studies showed that exposure to the liquid environment had a negative effect on the retention force of the resin cements, regardless of whether thermocycling was performed. The specimens were sandblasted, after which a primer was applied to some of the specimens. Irrespective of the surface treatment, the typical mode of failure was adhesive failure. In contrast, Zenthofer et al. [30] demonstrated that artificial aging had no effect on the retentive force of the resin cement, which might be influenced by the type of luting cement. In the current study, we used a self-curing resin-based cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment cement, Ivoclar Vivadent). Güngör and Nemli [29] investigated the effect of three types of resin cement on the retentive strength of zirconia abutments bonded to titanium inserts and found that the retentive force of the multilink hybrid abutment cement was the same as that of Panavia F 2.0 but was lower than that of the Zirconite cement.
The failure mode in group B (screwed-cemented restoration, with a T-base) was expected to be mainly adhesive failure. However, our results demonstrated that at all force levels, metal failure also occurred (screw/MUA). This result is in agreement with the results of other reports [31,32,33], which differ from our study because they evaluated the strength of the zirconia abutments with and without a T-base, while we evaluated the zirconia prostheses with and without a T-base. Metal failure was also observed at all force levels in group A (without a T-base). One would expect that because there was no luting cement, zirconia failure would occur in all the specimens, as this was the rationale for using the T-base. Our results showed that zirconia failure occurred at only high loading forces. This phenomenon is probably related to the high flexural strength (900–1200 Mpa) and fracture toughness (9–10 Mpa m0.5) of the Y-TZP monolithic structure [3]. Under continuous cyclic loading, a catastrophic failure will occur within the metal (titanium) at lower force levels than those affecting the zirconia. At higher forces, because zirconia is a brittle material that is not capable of deforming, catastrophic failure will occur within the zirconia concomitantly with metal failure. When there is a cement mediator, as in group B, the weakest link is the cement, and thus an adhesive failure will occur and cause the zirconia to separate from the titanium sleeve, even at high force levels. Zirconia failure was thus not observed.
From a clinical point of view, separation of the zirconia crown from the T-base, as was found in the screwed-cemented restoration, is easy to repair by re-cementation. Even, metal failure, either of the MUA or of the screw head, is reparable with some cost, by simply replacing the damaged elements. However, when a zirconia fracture occurs, as was seen in the screwed restoration (without a T-base) at high loading forces, the zirconia crown should be replaced, with a higher cost.
The limitation of this study was the number of experiments, which was too small for full-scale statistical analysis. However, this study highlighted an importance issue that has not yet been addressed in the literature. Because this is a pilot study, further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted. In addition, similar to other in vitro studies, a laboratory study design cannot fully reproduce clinical conditions, even if the samples are artificially aged by chewing simulation and thermocycling. One might argue that the geometry of the hemisphere with the zirconia coping is different from the geometry of the in vivo zirconia crown. We followed the ISO protocol that simulates the functional loading of an endosseous dental implant and its prosthesis under “worst-case” conditions; however, this method cannot fully predict the in vivo behavior of the dental implant and its prosthesis. Therefore, the results of the present study should be interpreted with caution.

4. Materials and Methods

Thirty-six straight MUAs (Alpha-Bio Tec., Petah Tikva, Israel) were torqued to laboratory analogs (6 mm width) (Alpha-Bio Tec.) with a digital torque ratchet (30 Ncm) (CEDAR Model DIW 15) and were assigned to two groups (24 specimens per group):
Group A (screwed restoration) (n = 18): Spherically shaped monolithic zirconia copings (Ceramill® material, Amann Girrbach AG, Koblach, Austria) with a height of 10 mm and a wall thickness of 1.5 mm were designed and milled with an internal ledge for the screw head and then torqued to the MUAs with a digital torque ratchet (25 Ncm) (CEDAR Model DIW 15) (Figure 5a).
The screwed zirconia cap has an internal zirconia ledge that supports the screw head and is in intimate contact with the MUAs (Figure 5c).
Group B (screwed-cemented restoration) (n = 18): Spherically shaped monolithic zirconia copings (Ceramill® material, Amann Girrbach AG, Koblach, Austria) with a height of 10 mm and a wall thickness of 1.5 mm were designed and milled to fit a titanium sleeve (a T-base) (Alpha-Bio Tec.) (Figure 5b). The cementation of the monolithic zirconia crowns to the T-base was performed according to commonly accepted protocols [34]. The intaglio surface of the crowns and the outer surface of the T-base were airborne particle-abraded using 50 µ alumina oxide particles at pressures of 1 and 2 bar, respectively; then, the surfaces were cleaned with alcohol. The pretreated T-base and the intaglio surface of the crown were coated with a single component primer to promote adhesion (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent). The primer agent was allowed to react for 60 min, after which it was dispersed by a stream of air. The specimens were then cemented to the T-base with a self-curing resin-based cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment cement, Ivoclar Vivadent) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The copings were seated with a device that allowed a predefined pressure of 50 N to be applied along the longitudinal axis of the abutment for 7 min [35,36]. Excess resin was removed from the bonded margins before it set completely. After cementation, the specimens were torqued to the MUAs with a digital torque ratchet (25 Ncm) (CEDAR Model DIW 15).
All specimens in both groups were stored at 37 °C under 100% humidity for one month, followed by thermal cycling between water temperatures of 5 °C and 55 °C for 20,000 cycles with a 10 s dwell time (Y. Manes, Tel-Aviv, Israel).
After aging, a fatigue test was performed according to the ISO standard 14801 [23]. To comply with this standard, every specimen was embedded in a designated metal holder inclined 30° to the longitudinal force axis direction. Additionally, to allow a uniform stress distribution and to avoid stress concentration, the load was applied to a hemisphere modeled exactly on the occlusal surface of each coping without cementation (Figure 6a,b).
To determine the static maximum load that the assembly could resist, which corresponds to one cycle on the S-N curve (plotted as force versus log number of cycles), three samples of each group were subjected to an increased static compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until catastrophic failure using a uniaxial universal testing machine (Instron, ElectroPuls E3000, Instron Corp., Buckinghamshire, high Wycombe, UK). The average failure rate from this test was calculated and defined as the maximal failure load.
For the dynamic loading, the remaining specimens were tested in progressively lower loads, starting at 80% of the maximal failure load, using an MTS Systems Corporation machine (Instron, ElectroPuls E3000, Instron Corp., Buckinghamshire, high Wycombe, UK) (Table 2 and Table 3). The compressive fatigue limits were determined by testing according to the staircase or up-and-down method [37] in a 14 Hz frequency cycle. In this method, the tests were conducted sequentially, with the maximum applied stress in each successive test increasing or decreasing by a fixed amount according to whether the previous stress resulted in failure, until a load was reached at which three specimens survived 5,000,000 cycles, which is equivalent to five years of in vivo mastication [38]. The failure mode of all the specimens was evaluated by stereomicroscopy at 20× magnification (StarLite 150, OGP, Rochester, NY, USA).
Due to the small number of samples, no statistical analysis could be performed with sufficient statistical power.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of this pilot study, zirconia restoration screwed directly to an MUA without a T-base is shown to be a viable procedure, and the survival odds of this restoration are not inferior to those of the screwed-cemented restoration. Failure will probably occur within the metal (MUA/screw) before zirconia failure. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.H. and S.L.; Formal analysis, I.B., R.P. and S.L.; Investigation, H.H. and A.A.; Methodology, R.P. and S.L.; Writing—original draft, H.H.; Writing—review & editing, S.L.

Funding

Alpha-Bio Tec., Petach Tikva, Israel.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to H Gryner and O Havkin for their help during the experiments and with the creation of the figures. Y Peer from the Peer Dental Laboratory helped with the CAD-CAM zirconia preparation. The authors thank Alpha-Bio Tec., Petach Tikva, Israel, for providing the materials and financial support for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guncu, M.B.; Cakan, U.; Muhtarogullari, M.; Canay, S. Zirconia-based crowns up to 5 years in function: A retrospective clinical study and evaluation of prosthetic restorations and failures. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2015, 28, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Beuer, F.; Stimmelmayr, M.; Gueth, J.F.; Edelhoff, D.; Naumann, M. In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Guess, P.C.; Att, W.; Strub, J.R. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Michalakis, K.X.; Hirayama, H.; Garefis, P.D. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 719–728. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wilson, T.G., Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: A prospective clinical endoscopic study. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 1388–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sailer, I.; Muhlemann, S.; Zwahlen, M.; Hammerle, C.H.; Schneider, D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012, 23, 163–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Linkevicius, T.; Puisys, A.; Vindasiute, E.; Linkeviciene, L.; Apse, P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 1179–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wittneben, J.G.; Millen, C.; Bragger, U. Clinical performance of screw-versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29 (Suppl. 2014), 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lewis, S. An esthetic titanium abutment: Report of a technique. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1991, 6, 195–201. [Google Scholar]
  10. Canullo, L.; Bignozzi, I.; Cocchetto, R.; Cristalli, M.P.; Iannello, G. Immediate positioning of a definitive abutment versus repeated abutment replacements in post-extractive implants: 3-Year follow-up of a randomised multicentre clinical trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2010, 3, 285–296. [Google Scholar]
  11. Degidi, M.; Nardi, D.; Piattelli, A. One abutment at one time: Non-removal of an immediate abutment and its effect on bone healing around subcrestal tapered implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 1303–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Grandi, T.; Guazzi, P.; Samarani, R.; Garuti, G. Immediate positioning of definitive abutments versus repeated abutment replacements in immediately loaded implants: Effects on bone healing at the 1-year follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2012, 5, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  13. McGlumphy, E.A.; Papazoglou, E.; Riley, R.L. The combination implant crown: A cement- and screw-retained restoration. Compendium 1992, 13, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Rajan, M.; Gunaseelan, R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 92, 578–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Uludag, B.; Celik, G. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained multiunit implant restoration. J. Oral Implant. 2006, 32, 248–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hussien, A.N.; Rayyan, M.M.; Sayed, N.M.; Segaan, L.G.; Goodacre, C.J.; Kattadiyil, M.T. Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 116, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Silva, N.R.; Teixeira, H.S.; Silveira, L.M.; Bonfante, E.A.; Coelho, P.G.; Thompson, V.P. Reliability and failure modes of a hybrid ceramic abutment prototype. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Linkevicius, T.; Caplikas, A.; Dumbryte, I.; Linkeviciene, L.; Svediene, O. Retention of zirconia copings over smooth and airborne-particle-abraded titanium bases with different resin cements. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 949–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Röhrle, O.; Saini, H.; Ackland, D.C. Occlusal loading during biting from an experimental and simulation point of view. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Umesh, S.; Padma, S.; Asokan, S.; Srinivas, T. Fiber Bragg Grating based bite force measurement. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 2877–2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fernandes, C.P.; Glantz, P.O.; Svensson, S.A.; Bergmark, A. A novel sensor for bite force determinations. Dent Mater. 2003, 19, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kwon, S.J.; Lawson, N.C.; McLaren, E.E.; Nejat, A.H.; Burgess, J.O. Comparison of the mechanical properties of translucent zirconia and lithium disilicate. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. ISO. International Organization for Standardization Endosseous Dental Implants: Dentistry Implants-Dynamic Fatigue Test, ISO 14801; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Koyama, T.; Sato, T.; Yoshinari, M. Cyclic fatigue resistance of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals with hot isostatic press processing. Dent. Mater. J. 2012, 31, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ding, Q.; Zhang, L.; Bao, R.; Zheng, G.; Sun, Y.; Xie, Q. Effects of different surface treatments on the cyclic fatigue strength of one-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implants. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2018, 84, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Duan, Y.; Gonzalez, J.A.; Kulkarni, P.A.; Nagy, W.W.; Griggs, J.A. Fatigue lifetime prediction of a reduced-diameter dental implant system: Numerical and experimental study. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 1299–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Shemtov-Yona, K.; Rittel, D. Random spectrum loading of dental implants: An alternative approach to functional performance assessment. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 62, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Naumova, E.A.; Roth, F.; Geis, B.; Baulig, C.; Arnold, W.H.; Piwowarczyk, A. Influence of luting materials on the retention of cemented implant-supported crowns: An in vitro study. Materials (Basel) 2018, 11, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gungor, M.B.; Nemli, S.K. The effect of resin cement type and thermomechanical aging on the retentive strength of custom zirconia abutments bonded to titanium inserts. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zenthofer, A.; Rues, S.; Krisam, J.; Rustemeyer, R.; Rammelsberg, P.; Schmitter, M. Debonding forces for two-piece zirconia abutments with implant platforms of different diameter and use of different luting strategies. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 1041–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chun, H.J.; Yeo, I.S.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, S.K.; Heo, S.J.; Koak, J.Y.; Han, J.S.; Lee, S.J. Fracture strength study of internally connected zirconia abutments reinforced with titanium inserts. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2015, 30, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kelly, J.R.; Rungruanganunt, P. Fatigue behavior of computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture ceramic abutments as a function of design and ceramics processing. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yilmaz, B.; Salaita, L.G.; Seidt, J.D.; McGlumphy, E.A.; Clelland, N.L. Load to failure of different zirconia abutments for an internal hexagon implant. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 114, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gehrke, P.; Alius, J.; Fischer, C.; Erdelt, K.J.; Beuer, F. Retentive strength of two-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implant abutments. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 920–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pilo, R.; Agar-Zoizner, S.; Gelbard, S.; Levartovsky, S. The retentive strength of laser-sintered cobalt- chromium-based crowns after pretreatment with a desensitizing paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 4082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pilo, R.; Folkman, M.; Arieli, A.; Levartovsky, S. Marginal fit and retention strength of zirconia crowns cemented by self-adhesive resin cements. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garoushi, S.; Lassila, L.V.; Tezvergil, A.; Vallittu, P.K. Static and fatigue compression test for particulate filler composite resin with fiber-reinforced composite substructure. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ongthiemsak, C.; Mekayarajjananonth, T.; Winkler, S.; Boberick, K.G. The effect of compressive cyclic loading on retention of a temporary cement used with implants. J. Oral Implant. 2005, 31, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 12 03056 g001 550
Figure 1. S-N curve. Chart showing the applied load as a function of the number of cycles. After the samples underwent five million cycles, the test was stopped. The horizontal and vertical lines are used as a guide for the eye.
Figure 1. S-N curve. Chart showing the applied load as a function of the number of cycles. After the samples underwent five million cycles, the test was stopped. The horizontal and vertical lines are used as a guide for the eye.
Materials 12 03056 g001
Materials 12 03056 g002 550
Figure 2. Specimen number seven in group A shows deformation and fracturing within the cone of the multi-unit abutment (MUA) under an applied load of 350 N. This mode of failure was predominant in group A.
Figure 2. Specimen number seven in group A shows deformation and fracturing within the cone of the multi-unit abutment (MUA) under an applied load of 350 N. This mode of failure was predominant in group A.
Materials 12 03056 g002
Materials 12 03056 g003 550
Figure 3. Specimen number one in group A shows fracturing of the zirconia concomitantly with bending of the restoration screw head under an applied load of 450 N. This failure was observed in group A at only high loading forces.
Figure 3. Specimen number one in group A shows fracturing of the zirconia concomitantly with bending of the restoration screw head under an applied load of 450 N. This failure was observed in group A at only high loading forces.
Materials 12 03056 g003
Materials 12 03056 g004 550
Figure 4. Specimen number 10 in group B exhibits adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base in addition to deformation and fracturing within the cone of the MUA under an applied load of 300 N. This mode of failure was predominant in group B.
Figure 4. Specimen number 10 in group B exhibits adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base in addition to deformation and fracturing within the cone of the MUA under an applied load of 300 N. This mode of failure was predominant in group B.
Materials 12 03056 g004
Materials 12 03056 g005a 550Materials 12 03056 g005b 550
Figure 5. Components of the zirconia-abutment restorations. (a) Screwed restoration; (b) screwed-cemented restoration; (c) apical view of the screwed zirconia cap. Note the internal zirconia ledge for the support of the screw head.
Figure 5. Components of the zirconia-abutment restorations. (a) Screwed restoration; (b) screwed-cemented restoration; (c) apical view of the screwed zirconia cap. Note the internal zirconia ledge for the support of the screw head.
Materials 12 03056 g005aMaterials 12 03056 g005b
Materials 12 03056 g006 550
Figure 6. Test setup following ISO 14801:2016. (a) Schematic illustration of the test design: (1) loading device; (2) nominal bone level; (3) zirconia coping; (4) hemispherical loading member; (5) dental implant analog; and (6) metal specimen holder; (b) setup for the study.
Figure 6. Test setup following ISO 14801:2016. (a) Schematic illustration of the test design: (1) loading device; (2) nominal bone level; (3) zirconia coping; (4) hemispherical loading member; (5) dental implant analog; and (6) metal specimen holder; (b) setup for the study.
Materials 12 03056 g006
Table
Table 1. Mean maximal load-bearing capacity (N) and 80% level for each experimental group.
Table 1. Mean maximal load-bearing capacity (N) and 80% level for each experimental group.
Specimen Group A(N)Group B(N)
1872718
2811680
3675707
Mean786702
80% Level629561
Group A—screwed restoration; Group B—screwed-cemented restoration; 80% Level—80% of the average static load compressive test result.
Table
Table 2. Fatigue test results for group A (screwed restoration).
Table 2. Fatigue test results for group A (screwed restoration).
SpecimenLoad (N)No. of CyclesAverage No of CyclesFailure Mode
145035,670-Zirconia + metal (screw)
2450209,54380,545Metal (MUA + screw) Zirconia + metal (screw)
3450176,422-
44001,254,436-Metal (MUA + screw)
5400125,878533,457Metal (MUA + screw)
6400220,056-Metal (MUA + screw)
7350160,749-Metal (MUA + screw)
8350546,871266,048Metal (MUA + screw)
9350905,205-Metal (MUA + screw)
103003,401,784-Metal (MUA + screw)
11300437,0682,946,284Metal (MUA + screw)
123005,000,000-Metal (MUA + screw)
132505,000,000-No Failure
142505,000,0005,000,000No Failure
152505,000,000-No Failure
With a maximum load of 250 N, three specimens completed five million cycles without fracturing; Load—maximum load applied in each cycle; Number of cycles—number of cycles before the test was interrupted; Average number of cycles- for particular load values; MUA—multi-unit abutment.
Table
Table 3. Fatigue test results for group B (screwed-cemented restoration).
Table 3. Fatigue test results for group B (screwed-cemented restoration).
SpecimenLoad (N)No. of CyclesAverage No of CyclesFailure Mode
15506607-Adhesive + metal (screw)
255030,34122,450Metal (screw)
Adhesive + metal (screw)
355030,341-
445099,751-Adhesive + metal (MUA)
5450178,367158,818Metal (screw)
6450198,337-Adhesive + metal (MUA)
73502,950,685-Adhesive + metal (screw)
8350200,7511,764,689Adhesive + metal (MUA)
93502,142,632-Adhesive + metal (MUA)
10300553,418-Adhesive + metal (MUA)
113002,264,1472,472,765Metal (screw)
123004,600,732-Adhesive + metal (MUA
132505,000,000-No Failure
142505,000,0005,000,000No Failure
152505,000,000-No Failure
With a maximum load of 250 N, three specimens completed five million cycles without fracturing; Load—maximum load applied in each cycle; Number of cycles—number of cycles before the test was interrupted; Average number of cycles- for particular load values; MUA—multi-unit abutment.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Heller, H.; Arieli, A.; Beitlitum, I.; Pilo, R.; Levartovsky, S. Load-Bearing Capacity of Zirconia Crowns Screwed to Multi-Unit Abutments with and without a Titanium Base: An In Vitro Pilot Study. Materials 2019, 12, 3056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056

AMA Style

Heller H, Arieli A, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S. Load-Bearing Capacity of Zirconia Crowns Screwed to Multi-Unit Abutments with and without a Titanium Base: An In Vitro Pilot Study. Materials. 2019; 12(19):3056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Heller, Hadas, Adi Arieli, Ilan Beitlitum, Raphael Pilo, and Shifra Levartovsky. 2019. "Load-Bearing Capacity of Zirconia Crowns Screwed to Multi-Unit Abutments with and without a Titanium Base: An In Vitro Pilot Study" Materials 12, no. 19: 3056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop