Retentive strength of implant-supported CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia custom abutments using 6 different cements

Effect of surface pretreatment and artificial aging on the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented to zirconia implant abutments

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Recent advancements in restorative dentistry have seen an increase in the use of ceramic restorations and zirconia implant abutments. However, how the pretreatment of a zirconia abutment and different artificial aging protocols affect the bond strength of a cemented, monolithic lithium disilicate crown is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of surface pretreatment on the retentive strength of milled lithium disilicate crowns bonded to custom zirconia implant abutments with different resin cements after thermocycling and long-term aging.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 144 crowns (n=8) were milled and bonded to 144 abutments. In the experimental groups, 72 abutments were airborne-particle abraded with 50-μm aluminum oxide before bonding. All specimens were stored at 37 °C in 100% humidity for 24 hours. Forty-eight specimens were subjected to thermocycling, and another 48 were subjected to aging for 6 months. Retentive strength was measured by using a pull-off test with a universal testing machine. Retentive strength values were calculated and compared with 3-way analysis of variance and a Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

In the 24-hour aging group, retention for all experimental groups was significantly higher (P<.05) than for the control group, except for Panavia 21 with Clearfil Ceramic Primer. In the thermocycling and long-term aging groups, all cements in the experimental group displayed significantly higher retention than the control. The airborne-particle abrasion of custom zirconia implant abutments with 50-μm aluminum oxide before bonding to lithium disilicate crowns significantly increased the bond strength of the Multilink Hybrid Abutment with Monobond Plus and RelyX Ultimate with Scotchbond Universal cements after 24-hour aging, but not of Panavia 21 with Clearfil Ceramic Primer.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abrasion significantly increased the bond strength of all 3 cements after thermocycling and long-term aging.

Evaluation of debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to abutments of different designs and surface treatments

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Straight preparable abutments provide an alternative to titanium bases (Ti-bases) for single-unit screw-retained implant-supported restorations. However, the debonding force between crowns with a screw access channel cemented to preparable abutments and Ti-bases of different designs and surface treatments is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to straight preparable abutments and Ti-bases of different designs and surface treatments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty laboratory implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level) were embedded into epoxy resin blocks that were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10 each) according to the abutment type used: CEREC group, Variobase group, airborne-particle abraded Variobase group, and airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutment group. All specimens were restored with lithium disilicate crowns and cemented with resin cement to the corresponding abutments. They were thermocycled (from 5 to 55 °C for 2000 cycles) followed by cyclic loading (120 000 cycles). The tensile forces required to debond the crowns from the corresponding abutments were measured (N) by using a universal testing machine. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Comparison between the study groups was done with 1-way ANOVA (α=.05).

RESULTS

Tensile debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of abutment used (P<.05). The highest retentive force value was recorded in the straight preparable abutment group (928.1 ±222.2 N) followed by the airborne-particle abraded Variobase group (852.6 ±164.6 N), and the CEREC group (498.8 ±136.6 N); the lowest value was reported in the Variobase group (158.6 ±85.2 N).

CONCLUSIONS

The retention of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutments is significantly higher than to non-surface treated Ti-bases and similar to airborne-particle abraded ones. Abrading abutments with 50-mm Al2O3 significantly increased the debonding force of the lithium disilicate crowns.

Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of different cement systems with different ceramic primers on the retention strength of zirconia crowns.

METHODS

Thirty extracted molars were prepared with flat occlusal surfaces, 20 degrees taper, and 3 mm axial wall height. A zirconia crown with an occlusal bar was fabricated for each tooth. All specimens were divided (n = 10) into; Group M: Multilink Speed/Monobond N, Group P: Panavia V5/Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Group D: Duo-Link universal/Z-Prime Plus. The intaglio surfaces of crowns were air-abraded using 50 µm alumina at 2.5 bar for 10 s. Then each crown was cemented onto its corresponding tooth. All specimens were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles between 5 and 55 °C. Each crown was subjected to gradually increasing vertical load along the path of insertion through hooks engaging the occlusal bar using a universal testing machine until failure. The force at dislodgment was recorded and retention strength was calculated for each specimen. The failure modes were recorded for each specimen. The data were statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test followed by Tukey HSD test (α = .05).

RESULTS

Group D showed lowest strength (1.42 ± 0.23 MPa) and differed significantly (P < .001) from Group M (2.71 ± 0.45 MPa) and Group P (2.47 ± 0.41 MPa). There was no significant difference (P = .34) between Group M and Group P. The failure modes for Groups M and Group P were mainly cohesive, while Group D showed adhesive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The retention strength of zirconia crowns was improved with Multilink Speed and Panavia V5 cement systems, while the use of the Duo-Link Universal cement system only showed half of those retention strength values.

Shear Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Bonded with Various Surface-Treated Titanium

Purpose

Retention is one of the most important factors for fixed dental prostheses, especially in implant dentistry. Accordingly, the goal of this study was to evaluate the level of shear bond strength between titanium (Ti) subjected to different surface treatments and lithium disilicate glass-ceramics.

Materials and Methods

In this work, 90 titanium alloy specimens were divided into six groups as follows: the control group (CT), 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion group (SB), silica-coated group (CJ), anodization group (AN), anodization followed by alumina 50 μm airborne-particle abrasion group (ANSB), and anodization followed by silica coating group (ANCJ). Titanium specimens were bonded to lithium disilicate specimens with resin cement (Multilink N). The specimens were restored in water at 37°C for 24 h, and then, shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed using a universal testing machine (Shimadzu, Japan). The SBS values were statistically analyzed. The failure mode of the debonded titanium was classified after viewing the samples under a stereoscope.

Results

The results demonstrated that the mean SBSs of CT and AN were significantly lower than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). The SB group showed the highest SBS (29.47 ± 2.41 MPa); however, there was no significant difference between SB, ANSB, ANCJ, and CJ. The stereoscopic analysis demonstrated that the failure mode of AN was predominantly adhesive failure; whereas, the other groups showed cohesive and mixed failures.

Conclusions

In this study, it was found that the surface treatment with 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion, silica coating with Cojet™ sand, anodization followed by 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion, and anodization followed by silica coating with Cojet™ sand improved the SBS between titanium and lithium disilicate luted with Multilink N resin cement.

Bonding Strength of Lithium Disilicate Adhesive Crowns with Different Occluso-Cervical Preparation Heights and Cement Types

The aim of this study was to evaluate if adhesion technology with CAD/CAM can compensate for the reduction of occluso cervical preparation heights using different types of dental cement. The de-bonding failure types were then assessed. Here, 72 caries-free extracted human premolar teeth were prepared to have a remaining occlusal height of two, three, and four mm. IPS e.max lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns were cemented with adhesive resin cement Panavia SA, self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem Aplicap, and zinc phosphate cement. The cementation techniques were based on the manufacturer’s instructions. After thermocycling, all samples were tested for tensile bond strength via an Instron machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc testing (P < 0.05) was performed. The means TBS for the two, three, and four-mm OCHP groups were 2.72±0.69, 3.06±0.82, and 3.25±0.79.0 MPa; ARC, SARC, and ZPC were 3.41±0.51, 3.45±0.41, 2.08±0.35 MPa, respectively with significant differences in both. The mixed cement had failures in the resin cement groups. Failure was predominantly cohesive in the zinc phosphate group. Resin cement had the highest SBS values versus ZPC values when both bonded to lithium disilicate crowns with different occlusal heights. The failure of the adhesive to the crown and/or to the tooth were the highest for the four types of resin cement. Around 25% were cohesive failures with resin cement, but this was predominately adhesive in crowns in zinc phosphate regardless of the preparation heights.

Bond strength of zirconia- or polymer-based copings cemented on implant-supported titanium bases - an in vitro study

Purpose

To evaluate the bond strength between polymer-based copings and zirconia copings as positive control, cemented on implant-supported titanium bases with different adhesive cement systems. Moreover, to evaluate if airborne-particle abrasion of polymethylmetacrylate (PMMA) would enhance the bond strength.

Methods

Four groups of different materials were used to fabricate the copings, 30 in each group: airborne-particle abraded milled zirconia (TAZirconia, control group), milled PMMA (TPMMA), airborne-particle abraded milled PMMA (TAPMMA) and 3 D-printed micro filled hybrid resin (TAMFH). Each group of copings was cemented on titanium bases by three different adhesive cement systems, 10 each: Multilink Hybrid Abutment, Panavia V5, RelyX Ultimate. The specimens were stored dry at room temperature for 24 h, subjected to thermocycling for 5000 cycles followed by evaluating the bond strength by tensile strength test.

Results

TPMMA and TAPMMA cemented with Multilink Hybrid Abutment showed statistically significant lower bond strength in comparison to TAZirconia and TAMFH. No difference was observed between the latter two. TPMMA, TAPMMA and TAMFH had a statistically significant lower bond strength compared to the control group when cemented with Panavia V5. TPMMA and TAPMMA cemented with Rely X Ultimate showed statistically significant lower bond strength in comparison to the control group.

Conclusion

Almost all experimental groups, except 3 D-printed MFH, performed inferior than the positive control group where the highest bond strength was reported for the cementation of zirconia copings cemented with Panavia V5 or Rely X Ultimate. Airborne-particle abrasion did not improve the bond strength of the PMMA, except when Multilink Hybrid Abutment was used.

Retention of different CAD/CAM endocrowns bonded to severely damaged endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study

Aim:

Assess the retention of endocrowns fabricated of different CAD/CAM materials.

Settings and Design:

In vitro - comparative study.

Material and Methods:

Root canal treated mandibular first molars were prepared in a standardized method. Standardized endocrowns were manufactured using four CAD-CAM blocks: resin infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic), partially stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Katana), lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD), and polyether-ether-keton (PEEK, BioHPP). After proper surface treatment, the restorations were cemented using a resin cement (Panavia F2.0) and were connected to a special attachment unit and secured to a universal testing machine. The amount of axial load required to dislodge the restoration from the tooth structure was measured (n = 12, α = 0.05). Failures were classified as adhesive debonding from the tooth structure without damaging the supporting tooth structure and cohesive fracture of the supporting tooth structure

Statistical Analysis Used:

One-way analysis of variance,Tukey's post hoc test.

Results:

The retention of Vita Enamic (61 ± 11 N) and IPS e.max CAD (58 ± 9 N) was significantly higher (F = 123, P < 0.01) than Katana (33 ± 13) and Peek restorations (23 ± 11). Vita Enamic and IPS e.max CAD were associated with fractured tooth segments during debonding while Katana and PEEK specimens were adhesively debonded from the remaining tooth structure.

Conclusions:

Within the limitations of this study, using lithium disilicate ceramics and resin infiltrated ceramics as restorative materials to fabricate endocrowns to restore severely damaged endodontically treated teeth, recorded significantly higher retention values. Meanwhile, using yttrium partially stabilized zirconia and polyether ether ketones for the same purpose recorded a favorable mode failure which avoided the possibility of tooth fracture.

Retention of different temporary cements tested on zirconia crowns and titanium abutments in vitro

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to examine the retention force of monolithic zirconia copings cemented with various temporary cements on implant abutments in vitro.

Methods

Sixty exercise implants with pre-screwed implant abutments were embedded in resin. Subsequently, 60 CAD/CAM manufactured zirconia copings were divided into three main groups [Harvard Implant Semi-permanent (HAV), implantlink semi Forte (IMP), Temp Bond NE (TBNE)]. The zirconia copings were cemented on the implant abutments and loaded with 35 N. Specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 24 h. Half of the test specimens of each group were subjected to a thermocycling (TC) process. Retention force was measured in a universal testing machine. Using magnifying glasses, the fracture mode was determined. Statistical analysis was performed applying the Kruskal-Wallis test, the post hoc test according to Dunn-Bonferroni and a chi-square test of independence.

Results

Without TC, IMP showed the highest retention of the three temporary luting agents (100.5 ± 39.14 N). The measured retention forces of IMP were higher than those of HAV (45.78 ± 15.66 N) and TBNE (61.16 ± 20.19 N). After TC, retention was reduced. IMP showed the greatest retentive strength (21.69 ± 13.61 N, three fail outs). HAV and TBNE showed pull-off forces of similar magnitude (17.38 ± 12.77 N and 16.97 ± 12.36 N, two fail outs). The fracture mode analysis showed different results regarding the tested cements before and after TC (facture type before/after TC): IMP (III+II/III), HAV (I/II) and TBNE (III/III). There were clear differences of the fracture modes regarding the examination before and after TC.

Conclusions

Within the limits of this study, IMP showed the highest pull-off forces under the chosen test conditions. All three temporary luting agents showed lower retention forces after TC. Retention values in the individual cement classes were very heterogeneous. Easy cement removal in the crown lumen favours the dominance of adhesive cement fractures on the abutment and adhesive/cohesive cement fractures on the abutment with HAV appears advantageous in case of recementation of the superstructure.

Bond strength of lithium disilicate to polyetheretherketone

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a high-performance polymer that is increasingly used in dentistry, for example, as a framework for implant-supported fixed complete dentures. One protocol calls for individual lithium disilicate crowns to be cemented on preparation-shaped retentive elements on the framework. However, the flexibility and strength of the bonded system is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the flexibility and strength of bonded lithium disilicate to PEEK with the bond between lithium disilicate and zirconia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifteen PEEK (JUVORA Dental Disc), 15 zirconia (ArgenZ HT+), and 30 lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) beam-shaped specimens (12.5×2×2 mm) were prepared. The ends of the PEEK beams were conditioned with 50-μm aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion, followed by primer (visio.link) and light-activated polymerization. Zirconia specimens were prepared with airborne-particle abrasion and primer (Monobond Plus). Lithium disilicate specimens were etched with 4.5% hydrofluoric acid (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel) and primed (Monobond Plus). The lithium disilicate specimens were cemented (Multilink Automix) to the PEEK and zirconia specimens. Light- and chemical-activated polymerization were used. Monolithic specimens of PEEK and zirconia (25×2×2 mm) were also prepared. All specimens were stored overnight in distilled water and submitted to a 4-point bend test in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until fracture, and the flexural modulus and strength were calculated. Differences among groups were statistically tested by using 1-way analysis of variance followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

All bonded specimens fractured at their adhesive interface. Zirconia bonded to lithium disilicate specimens (29.7 ±8.8 MPa) were approximately 3 times stronger than PEEK bonded to lithium disilicate specimens (10.4 ±2.7 MPa) and approximately 12 times more rigid (78.5 ±6.7 GPa and 6.5 ±1.8 GPa, respectively). The flexure of monolithic PEEK was such that it did not fracture when loaded at 0.5 mm/min, while zirconia fractured at 413.9 ±38.5 MPa. Monolithic PEEK was approximately 37 times more flexible than monolithic zirconia (4.3 ±0.3 GPa and 157.2 ±7.2 GPa, respectively). All values were statistically significantly different except between the flexural moduli of monolithic PEEK and PEEK bonded to lithium disilicate.

CONCLUSIONS

The bond strength between PEEK and lithium disilicate was significantly weaker than between zirconia and lithium disilicate. Monolithic zirconia was significantly stiffer than monolithic PEEK.

Fracture load of zirconia implant supported CAD/CAM resin crowns and mechanical properties of restorative material and cement

PURPOSE

To test if resin CAD/CAM materials should be considered for zirconia implants and how their mechanical properties affect the fracture load.

METHODS

Fracture load of molar crowns of CAD/CAM materials (VITA CAD-Temp [CT], Cerasmart [CS], Lava Ultimate [LU], Pekkton Ivory [PK]) on zirconia implants (ceramic.implant, 4.0 mm) fixed either with no cement, temporary cement (Harvard Implant semi-permanent [HIS]), self-adhesive (VITA Adiva S-Cem [VAS]) or either one of two adhesive cements (Multilink Automix [MLA], VITA Adiva F-Cem [VAF]) was analyzed. The restorative materials were characterized by their flexural strength, fracture toughness, elemental composition and organic/inorganic ratio while compressive strength of the cements was measured.

RESULTS

For the fracture load significantly highest mean values were fo und overall for PK (2921 ±300 N) > LU (2017 ±499 N) > CS (1463 ±367 N) = CT (1451 ±327 N) (p > 0.05). When analyzing the effect of the cement on the fracture load the overall ranking was VAF (2245 ±650 N) ≥ MLA (2188 ±708 N) ≥ VAS (2017 ±563 N) > HIS (1757 ±668 N) = no cement (1595 ±757 N) (p <0.05), meaning fracture load increased with the compressive strength of the cements. Additionally, a linear trend was found between the fracture load and the fracture toughness of the restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS

All restorative materials exhibited fracture load values similar or higher than lithium disilicate tested previously. Fracture load of CT, CS and LU can be significantly increased when an adhesive cement with a high compressive strength is used.

Long-term retention of lithium disilicate crowns with a current bioactive cement

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a recent bioactive cement provides acceptable lithium disilicate crown retention after long-term aging with monthly thermocycling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Extracted molars prepared with flat occlusal, 20° taper, ~4 mm axial. Prepared teeth assigned to two groups for equal mean surface areas per group. Lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with occlusal bar to facilitate removal. Crowns etched with 9.5%HF and cleaned. Cements were Ceramir Crown & Bridge QuikCap (CM) and Ketac Cem Maxicap (KC). Before cementation, specimens stored in 37°C water. Crowns cemented with 196 N force, placed in 37°C, 100% humidity oven for setting. Specimens thermocycled (5-55°C) 5000 cycles monthly for 6 months; otherwise stored in phosphate buffered saline solution. Crowns removed axially at 0.5 mm/min. Removal forces recorded and stresses calculated using areas. Independent t-test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Levene test not significant (P = 0.649). CM removal stresses and forces (P < 0.001) were higher (1.93 MPa, 261.4 N) compared to KC (1.06 MPa, 139.4 N). CM cement found principally on crown intaglio, KC found with most cement on prepared tooth. Chi-square significant (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Following long-term aging with monthly thermocycling, lithium disilicate crowns were best retained by CM cement, however both cements are capable of retaining lithium disilicate crowns with preparations of ideal taper and length.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Results serve as a basis for bioactive cement selection for retaining lithium disilicate crowns. Without optimal axial length, taper of preparation or retentive features, Ceramir Crown and Bridge QuikCap offers a bioactive cement with improved long-term retention when compared to Ketac Cem Maxicap for lithium disilicate crowns.

What is the Best Available Luting Agent for Implant Prosthesis?

Cement-retention is a viable option in restoring dental implants. A wide range of dental cements with different properties are commercially available for use in the cementation of implant prostheses. The selection of a dental cement for proper clinical application can be challenging. This article overviews the commercially available dental cements used in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. Guidelines for cement selection are presented according to abutment and prosthetic material. Cementation techniques to reduce excess cement in peri-implant tissues are also mentioned.

Influence of cement type and ceramic primer on retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to a one-piece zirconia implant

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The best procedure for cementing a restoration to zirconia implants has not yet been established.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to zirconia 1-piece implants using a wide range of cements. The effect of ceramic primer treatment on the retention force was also recorded. The retention results were correlated with the shear bond strength of the cement to zirconia and the indirect tensile strength of the cements to better understand the retention mechanism.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retention test was performed using 100 polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns (Vita Enamic) and zirconia implants (ceramic.implant CI) The crowns were cemented with either interim cement (Harvard Implant semipermanent, Temp Bond), glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem), self-adhesive cement (Perma Cem 2.0, RelyX Unicem Automix 2, Panavia SA), or adhesive cement (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix, Vita Adiva F-Cem, RelyX Ultimate, Panavia F 2.0, Panavia V5 or Panavia 21) (n=5). Additionally ceramic primer was applied on the intaglio crown surface and implant abutment before cementation for all adhesive cements (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix: Monobond plus; RelyX Ultimate Scotchbond Universal; Vita Adiva F-Cem: Vita Adiva Zr-Prime; Panavia F2.0, Panavia V5: Clearfil Ceramic Primer) and 1 self-adhesive cement containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) (Panavia SA: Clearfil Ceramic Primer). Crown debond fracture patterns were recorded. Shear bond strength was determined for the respective cement groups to polished zirconia (n=6). The diametral tensile strength of the cements was measured (n=10). Statistical analysis was performed using 1-way or 2-way analysis of variance followed by the Fisher LSD test (α=.05) within each test parameter.

RESULTS

Adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements had shear bond strength values of 0.0 to 5.3 MPa and revealed similar retention forces. Cements containing MDP demonstrated shear bond strength values above 5.3 MPa and displayed increased retention. The highest retention values were recorded for Panavia F 2.0 (318 ±28 N) and Panavia 21 (605 ±82 N). All other adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements attained retention values between 222 ±16 N (Multilink Automix) and 270 ±26 N (Panavia SA), which were significantly higher (P<.05) than glass-ionomer (Ketac Cem: 196 ±34 N) or interim cement (Harvard Implant semipermanent: 43 ±6 N, Temp Bond: 127 ±13 N). Application of manufacturer-specific ceramic primer increased crown retention significantly only for Panavia SA.

CONCLUSIONS

Products containing MDP provided a high chemical bond to zirconia. Self-adhesive and adhesive resin cements with low chemical bonding capabilities to zirconia provided retention force values within a small range (220 to 290 N).