Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2024
Influence of ceramic crown design (translucent monolithic zirconia vs. bilayered) of implant-supported single crowns after mechanical cycling.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Oliveira Limirio Joao Pedro Justino, Gomes Jéssica Marcela de Luna, Santiago-Junior Joel Ferreira, Nagay Bruna Egumi, Pesqueira Aldiéris Alves, Assunção Wirley Gonçalves, Alves-Rezende Maria Cristina Rosifini, Pellizzer Eduardo Piza
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the influence of translucent monolithic versus bilayered crowns and whether the use of a CoCr base abutments affects the fatigue and fracture resistance of screwed implant-supported single crowns with external connections under mechanical cycling.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty specimens were divided into groups: (1) metal-ceramic (MC) crown, (2) veneered zirconia crown (Zr), (3) veneered zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (ZrB), (4) monolithic translucent zirconia crown (MZr), and (5) monolithic translucent zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (MZrB). Specimens underwent mechanical cycling (5 × 106 cycles; 150 N) evaluating fatigue resistance (number of failures) and those that failed were subsequently subjected to fractographic analyses (stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope) to evaluate failure location and area, and maximum fracture load was also measured.
RESULTS: The failure-related survival rate (100%) and maximum fracture resistance of the MZrB were significantly higher than those of MC and Zr (50%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the failure rate and fracture resistance when a CoCr base abutment was used or not in the translucent monolithic Zr groups (p > 0.05;MZrB vs. MZr). Failure location, with MC crowns' fractures, noted at the screw area (p = 0.043), while all-ceramic crowns were mostly in the cuspid and to failure area, the Zr group had the largest mean (15.55 ± 9.17 mm2) among the groups, significant difference only when compared with MC (1.62 ± 0.81 mm2) (p = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Translucent monolithic zirconia crowns exhibited significantly higher fatigue and fracture resistance compared with conventional MC and bilayered crowns.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The appropriate choice of material and manufacturing technique is crucial for predicting the higher clinical performance of single crowns. Enhanced mechanical resistance in terms of fatigue and fracture resistance can be achieved by replacing MC and bilayered restorations with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing monolithic zirconia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty specimens were divided into groups: (1) metal-ceramic (MC) crown, (2) veneered zirconia crown (Zr), (3) veneered zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (ZrB), (4) monolithic translucent zirconia crown (MZr), and (5) monolithic translucent zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (MZrB). Specimens underwent mechanical cycling (5 × 106 cycles; 150 N) evaluating fatigue resistance (number of failures) and those that failed were subsequently subjected to fractographic analyses (stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope) to evaluate failure location and area, and maximum fracture load was also measured.
RESULTS: The failure-related survival rate (100%) and maximum fracture resistance of the MZrB were significantly higher than those of MC and Zr (50%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the failure rate and fracture resistance when a CoCr base abutment was used or not in the translucent monolithic Zr groups (p > 0.05;MZrB vs. MZr). Failure location, with MC crowns' fractures, noted at the screw area (p = 0.043), while all-ceramic crowns were mostly in the cuspid and to failure area, the Zr group had the largest mean (15.55 ± 9.17 mm2) among the groups, significant difference only when compared with MC (1.62 ± 0.81 mm2) (p = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Translucent monolithic zirconia crowns exhibited significantly higher fatigue and fracture resistance compared with conventional MC and bilayered crowns.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The appropriate choice of material and manufacturing technique is crucial for predicting the higher clinical performance of single crowns. Enhanced mechanical resistance in terms of fatigue and fracture resistance can be achieved by replacing MC and bilayered restorations with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing monolithic zirconia.