Clinical oral implants research · 2024
Effect of implant type on the stability of cantilever fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rohr Nadja, Karakas-Stupar Irina, Karlin Sabrina, Zitzmann Nicola U, Zaugg Lucia K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To simulate the replacement of a premolar with an implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (ICFDP) and how the fracture load is affected by implant type, positioning within the zirconia blank, and aging protocol.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two ICFDPs were designed either within the enamel- or dentin layer of a 4Y-PSZ blank for bone-level and tissue-level titanium-zirconium implants. Fracture load was obtained on the cantilever at baseline (no aging) or after aging in a chewing simulator with the load applied within the implant axis (axial aging) or on the cantilever (12 groups with n = 6). A three-way ANOVA was applied (α = .05).
RESULTS: A three-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect on fracture load values of implant type (p = .006) and aging (p < .001) but not for the position within the zirconia blank (p = .847). Fracture load values significantly increased from baseline bone level (608 ± 118 N) and tissue level (880 ± 293 N) when the implants were aged axially, with higher values for tissue level (1065 ± 182 N) than bone level (797 ± 113 N) (p < .001). However, when the force was applied to the cantilever, fracture load values decreased significantly for tissue-level (493 ± 70 N), while values for bone-level implants remained stable (690 ± 135 N).
CONCLUSIONS: For ICFDPs, the use of bone-level implants is reasonable as catastrophic failures are likely to be restricted to the restoration, whereas with tissue-level implants, the transmucosal portion of the implant is susceptible to deformation, making repair more difficult.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two ICFDPs were designed either within the enamel- or dentin layer of a 4Y-PSZ blank for bone-level and tissue-level titanium-zirconium implants. Fracture load was obtained on the cantilever at baseline (no aging) or after aging in a chewing simulator with the load applied within the implant axis (axial aging) or on the cantilever (12 groups with n = 6). A three-way ANOVA was applied (α = .05).
RESULTS: A three-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect on fracture load values of implant type (p = .006) and aging (p < .001) but not for the position within the zirconia blank (p = .847). Fracture load values significantly increased from baseline bone level (608 ± 118 N) and tissue level (880 ± 293 N) when the implants were aged axially, with higher values for tissue level (1065 ± 182 N) than bone level (797 ± 113 N) (p < .001). However, when the force was applied to the cantilever, fracture load values decreased significantly for tissue-level (493 ± 70 N), while values for bone-level implants remained stable (690 ± 135 N).
CONCLUSIONS: For ICFDPs, the use of bone-level implants is reasonable as catastrophic failures are likely to be restricted to the restoration, whereas with tissue-level implants, the transmucosal portion of the implant is susceptible to deformation, making repair more difficult.