Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
. 2015 Apr 1;8(4):1577-1589.
doi: 10.3390/ma8041577.

All-Ceramic Single Crown Restauration of Zirconia Oral Implants and Its Influence on Fracture Resistance: An Investigation in the Artificial Mouth

Affiliations
Free PMC article

All-Ceramic Single Crown Restauration of Zirconia Oral Implants and Its Influence on Fracture Resistance: An Investigation in the Artificial Mouth

Ralf-Joachim Kohal et al. Materials (Basel). .
Free PMC article

Abstract

The aim of the current investigation was to evaluate the fracture resistance of one-piece zirconia oral implants with and without all-ceramic incisor crowns after long-term thermomechanical cycling. A total of 48 implants were evaluated. The groups with crowns (C, 24 samples) and without crowns (N, 24 samples) were subdivided according to the loading protocol, resulting in three groups of 8 samples each: Group "0" was not exposed to cyclic loading, whereas groups "5" and "10" were loaded with 5 and 10 million chewing cycles, respectively. This resulted in 6 different groups: C0/N0, C5/N5 and C10/N10. Subsequently, all 48 implants were statically loaded to fracture and bending moments were calculated. All implants survived the artificial aging. For the static loading the following average bending moments were calculated: C0: 326 Ncm; C5: 339 Ncm; C10: 369 Ncm; N0: 339 Ncm; N5: 398 Ncm and N10: 355 Ncm. To a certain extent, thermomechanical cycling resulted in an increase of fracture resistance which did not prove to be statistically significant. Regarding its fracture resistance, the evaluated ceramic implant system made of Y-TZP seems to be able to resist physiological chewing forces long-term. Restauration with all-ceramic single crowns showed no negative influence on fracture resistance.

Keywords: Y-TZP; artificial ageing; bending moment; fracture load; zirconia implants.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The evaluated implant system (zit-z, Ziterion GmbH, Uffenheim, Germany) and its metrics used for the experiment: 4.0 mm diameter, 13 mm intraosseous length, 2.5 mm transgingival height, 4 mm abutment height (pentagonal and tapered part).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Embedding of implants at an angle of 45° to the vertical with the help of a vacuum pump to fix the samples in place.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Manufacturing process of the incisor single crowns: Wax-up to implant abutment (a/b); Scan of Wax-up (c) and abutment (d); Computer-aided design (e); Computer-aided manufacturing (f) and restoration before glazing (g); Glazing (h); Final restoration (i/j).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Standardized photographs of the embedded implants with (left; groups C) and without (right; groups N) restoration allowed the measurement of the lever arm (the diameter of the transgingival platform served as reference).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Schematic drawing of the chewing simulator (Willytec, Munich, Germany). The vertical guide rail and the sample holder weigh another 1 kg.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Fracture of all samples occurred between the first and the second thread slightly below the embedding margin.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Box plot diagrams of the fracture load in [N] (left) and the bending moment in [Ncm] (right) sorted by restoration type (C: implant with crown; N: implant without crown) and loading protocol (0, 5 and 10 million chewing cycles).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 articles

References

    1. Jung R.E., Zembic A., Pjetursson B.E., Zwahlen M., Thoma D.S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl. 6):2–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pjetursson B.E., Thoma D., Jung R., Zwahlen M., Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (fdps) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl. 6):22–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Niinomi M. Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 1998;243:231–236. doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00806-X. - DOI
    1. Parr G.R., Gardner L.K., Toth R.W. Titanium: The mystery metal of implant dentistry. Dental materials aspects. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1985;54:410–414. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90562-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chaturvedi T.P. An overview of the corrosion aspect of dental implants (titanium and its alloys) Indian J. Dent. Res. 2009;20:91–98. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.49068. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback