Mechanical Stability of Restorations Supported by Titanium Base, Zirconia, and Polyetherketoneketone Abutments on One- and Two-Piece Zirconia Implants

Influence of straight versus angulated screw channel titanium bases on failure loads of two-piece ceramic and titanium implants restored with screw-retained monolithic crowns: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the influence of titanium-base (straight [SSC]/angulated-screw-channel [ASC]) on failure-loads and bending-moments of two-piece ceramic and titanium-zirconium implants restored with monolithic-zirconia crowns after fatigue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two anterior monolithic-screw-retained zirconia crowns were divided into four groups (n = 8/group) according to the factors: (1) type of implant material: two-piece titanium-zirconium implant (Ti-Zr; control-group) versus two-piece ceramic implant (CI; test-group) and (2) type of titanium-base: SSC (0° angle) versus ASC (25°). An intact implant was used for field emission gun-scanning electronic microscopy (FEG-SEM) characterization and Raman spectroscopy for phase analyses and residual stress quantification. All samples were exposed to fatigue with thermodynamic loading (1.2-million-cycles, 49 N, 1.6 Hz, 5-55°C) at a 30° angle. Surviving specimens were loaded until failure (SLF) and bending moments were recorded. Failed samples were examined using light microscope and SEM. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Raman-spectroscopy revealed the presence of residual compressive stresses. FEG-SEM revealed a roughened surface between threads and polished surface at the cervical-collar of the ceramic implant. All samples survived fatigue and were free of complications. Mean bending-moments (±SD) were: Ti-Zr-0: 241 ± 45 N cm, Ti-Zr-25: 303 ± 86 N cm, CI-0: 326 ± 58 N cm, CI-25: 434 ± 71 N cm. Titanium-base and implant-material had significant effects in favor of ASC titanium bases (p = .001) and ceramic-implants (p < .001). Failure analysis after SLF revealed severe fractures in ceramic implants, whereas titanium implants were restricted to plastic deformation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceramic and titanium implants exhibited high reliability after fatigue, with no failures. From a mechanical perspective, titanium bases with ASC can be recommended for both ceramic and titanium implants and are safe for clinical application.

Influence of loading and aging on the fracture strength of an injection-molded two-piece zirconia implant restored with a zirconia abutment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the fracture strength and potential phase transformation of an injection-molded two-piece zirconia implant restored with a zirconia abutment after loading and/or aging.

METHODS

Thirty-two two-piece zirconia implants (4.0 mm diameter) restored with zirconia abutments were embedded according to ISO 14801 and divided into four groups (n = 8/group): Three groups were either exclusively hydrothermally treated (group HT; 85°C), dynamically loaded (group DL; 10⁷  cycles; 98 N), or subjected to both treatments simultaneously (group DL/HT). One group remained untreated (group 0). A sample from each group was cross-sectioned and examined by scanning electron microscopy for possible crystal phase transformation. The remaining samples were then loaded to fracture in a static loading test. A one-way ANOVA was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

During dynamic loading, three implants of group DL and six implants of group DL/HT fractured at a load of 98 N. The fracture strength of group DL/HT (108 ± 141 Ncm) was significantly reduced compared to the other groups (group 0: 342 ± 36 Ncm; HT: 363 ± 49 Ncm; DL: 264 ± 198 Ncm) (p < .05). Fractures from group 0 and HT occurred at both implant and abutment level, whereas implants from group DL and DL/HT fractured only at implant level. A shallow monoclinic transformation zone of approximately 2 μm was observed following hydrothermal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that dynamic loading and the combination of loading and aging reduced the fracture strength of the implant abutment combination. Hydrothermal treatment caused a shallow transformation zone which had no influence on the fracture strength.