Top

Published in:

01-02-2011 | Original Article

Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments

Authors: Frank Philipp Nothdurft, Sabine Merker, Peter Reinhard Pospiech

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2011

Abstract

This in vitro study investigated the fracture behaviour of implant–implant-supported and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDP) using zirconium dioxide implant abutments (FRIADENT® CERCON® abutments, DENTSPLY Friadent). Six different test groups (n = 8) were prepared. Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 represented an implant–implant-supported FDP condition, whereas groups 3 and 6 simulated an implant–tooth-supported FDP condition. The second right premolar of the mandible was replaced with a pontic tooth. In groups 2 and 5, implant abutments were individualised by circumferential preparation. XiVe® S plus screw implants (DENTSPLY Friadent) that were 4.5 mm (first molar) and 3.8 mm (first premolar) in diameter and 11 mm in length and metal tooth analogues with simulated periodontal mobility, representing the first right premolar, were mounted in a polymethyl methacrylate block. The FDPs were cemented with KetacCem (3 M Espe GmbH, Germany). Groups 4, 5, and 6 were thermomechanically loaded (thermal and mechanical cycling (TCML) = 1.2 × 10⁶; 10,000 × 5°/55°) and subjected to static loading until failure. Statistical analysis of data obtained for the force at fracture was performed using non-parametric tests. All samples tested survived TCML. In the implant–implant-supported groups, circumferential abutment preparation resulted in a tendency to lower fracture forces compared to groups with unprepared abutments (group 1, 472.75 ± 24.71 N; group 2, 423.75 ± 48.48 N; group 4, 647.13 ± 39.10 N; group 5, 555.86 ± 30.34 N). The implant–tooth-supported restorations exhibited higher fracture loads (group 3, 736.25 ± 82.23 N; group 6, 720.75 ± 48.99 N) than the implant–implant-supported restorations which did not possess circumferentially individualised abutments. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the non-artificially aged groups. Implant–tooth-supported FDP restorations did exhibit an increased fracture load compared to implant–implant-supported FDP restorations.

Barboza EP, Caula AL, Carvalho WR (2002) Crestal bone loss around submerged and exposed unloaded dental implants: a radiographic and microbiological descriptive study. Implant Dent 11:162–169CrossRefPubMed

Misch CE, Dietsh-Misch F, Hoar J, Beck G, Hazen R, Misch CM (1999) A bone quality-based implant system: first year of prosthetic loading. J Oral Implantol 25:185–197CrossRefPubMed

Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1997) The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 24:568–572CrossRefPubMed

Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T (2008) The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:635–641PubMed

Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J (1998) The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 25:721–727CrossRefPubMed

Watkin A, Kerstein RB (2008) Improving darkened anterior peri-implant tissue color with zirconia custom implant abutments. Compend Contin Educ Dent 29(238–240):242

Linkevicius T, Apse P (2008) Influence of abutment material on stability of peri-implant tissues: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:449–456PubMed

Degidi M, Artese L, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Gehrke P, Piattelli A (2006) Inflammatory infiltrate, microvessel density, nitric oxide synthase expression, vascular endothelial growth factor expression, and proliferative activity in peri-implant soft tissues around titanium and zirconium oxide healing caps. J Periodontol 77:73–80CrossRefPubMed

Brodbeck U (2003) The ZiReal post: a new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent 15:10–23 discussion 24CrossRefPubMed

10.

Butz F, Heydecke G, Okutan M, Strub JR (2005) Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil 32:838–843CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gehrke P, Dhom G, Brunner J, Wolf D, Degidi M, Piattelli A (2006) Zirconium implant abutments: fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int 37:19–26PubMed

12.

Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Scharer P (2004) Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 17:285–290PubMed

13.

Kolbeck C, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2008) Fracture force of tooth–tooth- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed partial dentures using titanium vs. customised zirconia implant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1049–1053CrossRefPubMed

14.

Andersson B, Glauser R, Maglione M, Taylor A (2003) Ceramic implant abutments for short-span FPDs: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 16:640–646PubMed

15.

Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH (2009) Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:802-808

16.

Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Siegenthaler D, Holderegger C, Hammerle CH (2009) Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: preliminary results at 1year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:219–225CrossRefPubMed

17.

Canullo L, Morgia P, Marinotti F (2007) Preliminary laboratory evaluation of bicomponent customized zirconia abutments. Int J Prosthodont 20:486–488PubMed

18.

Att W, Kurun S, Gerds T, Strub JR (2006) Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations after exposure to the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 33:380–386CrossRefPubMed

19.

Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Tashkandi E, Dib S, Salameh Z, Almas K (2008) Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 9:41–48PubMed

20.

Adatia ND, Bayne SC, Cooper LF, Thompson JY (2009) Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J Prosthodont 18:17–22CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yildirim M, Fischer H, Marx R, Edelhoff D (2003) In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 90:325–331CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lawn BR, Pajares A, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Polack MA, Lloyd IK et al (2004) Materials design in the performance of all-ceramic crowns. Biomaterials 25:2885–2892CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ohlmann B, Marienburg K, Gabbert O, Hassel A, Gilde H, Rammelsberg P (2009) Fracture-load values of all-ceramic cantilevered FPDs with different framework designs. Int J Prosthodont 22:49–52PubMed

24.

Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM (2004) Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 31:18–22CrossRefPubMed

25.

Nishigawa K, Bando E, Nakano M (2001) Quantitative study of bite force during sleep associated bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 28:485–491CrossRefPubMed

26.

Schwartz-Arad D, Samet N, Samet N (1999) Single tooth replacement of missing molars: a retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol 70:449–454CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nickenig HJ, Schafer C, Spiekermann H (2006) Survival and complication rates of combined tooth–implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:506–511CrossRefPubMed

28.

Gross M, Laufer BZ (1997) Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part I: laboratory and clinical studies. J Oral Rehabil 24:863–870CrossRefPubMed

29.

Laufer BZ, Gross M (1998) Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part II: principles and applications. J Oral Rehabil 25:69–80CrossRefPubMed

30.

Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones JD (2000) Guidelines for splinting implants. J Prosthet Dent 84:210–214CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lin CL, Wang JC (2003) Nonlinear finite element analysis of a splinted implant with various connectors and occlusal forces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:331–340PubMed

32.

Astrand P, Borg K, Gunne J, Olsson M (1991) Combination of natural teeth and osseointegrated implants as prosthesis abutments: a 2-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:305–312PubMed

33.

Fugazzotto PA, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Neuendorff G (1999) Implant/tooth-connected restorations utilizing screw-fixed attachments: a survey of 3, 096 sites in function for 3 to 14years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:819–823PubMed

34.

Hosny M, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Naert I (2000) Within-subject comparison between connected and nonconnected tooth-to-implant fixed partial prostheses: up to 14-year follow-up study. Int J Prosthodont 13:340–346PubMed

35.

Lindh T, Back T, Nystrom E, Gunne J (2001) Implant versus tooth-implant-supported prostheses in the posterior maxilla: a 2-year report. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:441–449CrossRefPubMed

36.

Pesun IJ (1997) Intrusion of teeth in the combination implant-to-natural-tooth fixed partial denture: a review of the theories. J Prosthodont 6:268–277CrossRefPubMed

37.

Nyman SR, Lang NP (1994) Tooth mobility and the biological rationale for splinting teeth. Periodontol 2000 4:15–22CrossRefPubMed

38.

Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ (2008) Biomechanical interactions in tooth–implant-supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the number of splinted teeth and connector type: a finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:107–117PubMed

39.

Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M (2007) Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):97–113CrossRefPubMed

40.

Torbjorner A, Fransson B (2004) A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 17:369–376PubMed

41.

Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR (2002) Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 87:438–445CrossRefPubMed

42.

Piconi C, Maccauro G (1999) Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 20:1–25CrossRefPubMed

Title: Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments
Authors: Frank Philipp Nothdurft
Sabine Merker
Peter Reinhard Pospiech
Publication date: 01-02-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0359-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

A retrospective overview of treatment choice and outcome in 126 cases with arrested eruption of mandibular second molars

Bone crestal height and bone density after third-molar extraction and grafting: a long-term follow-up study

Oral health in predialysis patients with emphasis on diabetic nephropathy

Neurofibromatosis 1 and dental caries

Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for class II composite restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up findings

Influence of voluntary control of masticatory side and rhythm on cerebral hemodynamics