Effect of fatigue loading and failure mode of different ceramic implant abutments

The Fracture Resistance Comparison between Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments with and without Ageing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Implant abutments are essential components of implant prosthetic restorations. The golden standard for abutment material is titanium; however, due to its properties, the esthetic result can be compromised. The most popular esthetic material alternatives are one- and two-piece zirconia. The study aimed to answer the questions of whether zirconia abutments can be used interchangeably with titanium in both anterior and posterior regions and how aging of the abutment affects durability. For this study, an electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus (Embase) was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and a systematic review was registered with PROSPERO. The search revealed 4031 results, of which 17 studies were selected. The strongest material for abutments is titanium, closely followed by two-piece zirconia. One-piece zirconia abutments were the weakest. The cyclic loading above 1,000,000 cycles decreased the fracture resistance of the abutments. Differences in implant diameter, angulation, and restoration affected the fracture strength of all compared materials. The main mode of failure for titanium abutments was screw bending or screw fracture. One-piece zirconia most often presented catastrophic failure with internal hexagon fracture below the implant neck. Two-piece zirconia exhibits a combination of failure modes. Two-piece zirconia abutments may be suitable for use in the posterior region, given their comparable fracture resistance to titanium abutments. Despite the fact that one-piece zirconia is capable of withstanding forces that exceed those exerted during mastication, it is recommended that it be employed primarily in the anterior dentition due to its propensity for unfavorable failure modes.

Comparison of De-Torque and Failure Load Evaluation of Selective-Laser-Sintered CoCr, CAD-CAM ZrO, and Machined Implant Abutment/Restoration

AIM

This study aimed to compare the torque loss, fracture load, compressive strength, and failure types of selective-laser-sintered cobalt chromium (SLM-Co-Cr), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing zirconium oxide (CAD-CAM-ZrO), and machined titanium (Ti) implant abutments.

METHODS

Thirty endosseous dental implants were vertically embedded with machined Ti (control group), CAD-CAM-ZrO, and SLM-Co-Cr abutments. Abutment fabrication involved CAD-CAM milling and SLM technology. The de-torque assessment included preload reverse torque values (RTVs), cyclic loading, and post-RTVs using a customized protocol. Fracture load assessment employed ISO-14801 standards, and statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA and Tukey Post hoc tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

In pre-load RTVs, SLM-Co-Cr showed the lowest mean torque loss (24.30 ± 2.13), followed by machined Ti (27.33 ± 2.74) and CAD-CAM-ZrO (22.07 ± 2.20). Post-load RTVs decreased for all groups. Fracture load and compressive strength were highest for SLM-Co-Cr, with significant differences among groups (p < 0.001). Fracture types included abutment failures in SLM-Co-Cr and machined Ti, while CAD-CAM-ZrO exhibited crown separation with deformation.

CONCLUSION

SLM-Co-Cr-fabricated implant abutments exhibited superior stability and resistance to rotational forces, higher fracture loads, and greater compressive strength compared to CAD-CAM-ZrO and machined Ti.

Fracture strength of screw-retained zirconia crowns assembled on zirconia and titanium implants

PURPOSE

This in vitro study evaluated the fracture strength of screw-retained zirconia crowns connected to zirconia (Zr) and titanium (Ti) implants after undergoing a simulation of 5 years of clinical use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight screw-retained zirconia crowns were fabricated and assembled on four implant systems, with 12 in each group: (1) Zr implant (pure ceramic; Straumann AG) (PZr); (2) Zr implant (NobelPearl; Nobel Biocare) (NPZr); (3) Ti-Zr implant (Bone Level Roxolid; Straumann AG) (RSTiZr); (4) Ti implant (Conical Connection PMC; Nobel Biocare) (NRTi). Crowns were luted to their associated abutments using resin cement and then torqued to their assigned implants at the recommended torque value. Specimens were subjected to dynamic loading for 1,200,000 loading cycles. Fracture strength, measured in Newtons (N), was tested under static compression load using a universal testing machine at an angle of 30°. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons post hoc test were used to compare the mean fracture values between the groups at a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

The average fracture strengths for the RSTiZr and NRTi groups were 1207 ± 202 and 1073 ± 217 N, respectively, which was significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than the PZr and NPZr groups (712 ± 76 and 571.6 ± 167 N, respectively). However, no significant difference was found between the fracture strength value of RSTiZr and NRTi (p = 0.260) or PZr and NPZr (p = 0.256) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia crowns connected to Zr implants have the potential to withstand the average physiological occlusal forces which occur in the anterior and premolar regions.

Cementum is key to periodontal tissue regeneration: A review on apatite microstructures for creation of novel cementum-based dental implants

The cementum is the outermost layer of hard tissue covering the dentin within the root portion of the teeth. It is the only hard tissue with a specialized structure and function that forms a part of both the teeth and periodontal tissue. As such, cementum is believed to be critical for periodontal tissue regeneration. In this review, we discuss the function and histological structure of the cementum to promote crystal engineering with a biochemical approach in cementum regenerative medicine. We review the microstructure of enamel and bone while discussing the mechanism underlying apatite crystal formation to infer the morphology of cementum apatite crystals and their complex structure with collagen fibers. Finally, the limitations of the current dental implant treatments in clinical practice are explored from the perspective of periodontal tissue regeneration. We anticipate the possibility of advancing periodontal tissue regenerative medicine via cementum regeneration using a combination of material science and biochemical methods.

Laboratory Fracture Resilience of Hybrid Abutments Used in Oral Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

When implants are required in prosthodontics treatment, one of the most important decisions is the choice of the final crown and the type of connection to the implant through the abutment. Hybrid abutments are becoming a primary choice. They are projected and produced with materials whose properties guarantee the required mechanical features (including resistance) and take advantage of the hybrid abutment crown retention between screw and cement. However, a review of the mechanical resistance of the different abutment types and associated materials is still lacking. This review aimed to study the in vitro mechanical efficiency of the hybrid abutments used in oral rehabilitation. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, B-on, and Google Scholar databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: 75 articles were identified from all databases, and 33 were selected after abstract screening. Thus, 21 studies were included in the review after full-text reading. Among the materials used for crowns, lithium disilicate was, aesthetically, the primary choice for its aesthetic and moderate strength. On the other hand, zirconia showed the best fracture resistance. Regarding the different kinds of abutments, there is still some lack of knowledge about the best design. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review, we can conclude that hybrid pillars are an excellent choice for oral rehabilitation through implants, showing improved resistance when including materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate.