Stability of Cantilever Fixed Dental Prostheses on Zirconia Implants

Effect of implant type on the stability of cantilever fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study

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.

Load bearing capacity of 3-unit screw-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with a mesial and distal cantilever on a single implant: A comparative in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the mechanical durability of monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDP) design on one implant, with a distal and a mesial extension cantilever bonded to a titanium base compared to established designs on two implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Roxolid Tissue level (TL), and tissue level x (TLX) implants were used to manufacture screw-retained 3-unit iFDPs (n = 60, n = 10 per group), with following configurations (X: Cantilever; I: Implant, T: Test group, C: Control group): T1: X-I-X (TL); T2: X-I-X (TLX); T3: I-I-X (TL); T4: I-I-X (TLX); C1: I-X-I (TL); C2: I-X-I (TLX). The iFDPs were thermomechanically aged and subsequently loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The failure load at first crack (Finitial) and at catastrophic fracture (Fmax) were measured and statistical evaluation was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests.

RESULTS

The mean values ranged between 190 ± 73 and 510 ± 459 N for Finitial groups, and between 468 ± 76 and 1579 ± 249 N for Fmax, respectively. Regarding Finitial, neither the implant type, nor the iFDP configuration significantly influenced measured failure loads (all p > 0.05). The choice of implant type did not show any significant effect (p > 0.05), while reconstruction design significantly affected Fmax data (I-I-Xa < X-I-Xb < I-X-Ic) (p < 0.05). The mesial and distal extension groups (X-I-X) showed fractures only at the cantilever extension site, while the distal extension group (I-I-X) showed one abutment and one connector fracture at the implant/reconstruction interface.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that iFDPs with I-X-I design can be recommended regardless of tested implant type followed by the mesial and distal extension design on one implant abutment (X-I-X).

Failure Load and Fatigue Behavior of Monolithic and Bi-Layer Zirconia Fixed Dental Prostheses Bonded to One-Piece Zirconia Implants

No evidence-based prosthetic treatment concept for 3-unit fixed-dental-prostheses (FDPs) on ceramic implants is currently available. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the failure load and fatigue behavior of monolithic and bi-layer zirconia FDPs supported by one-piece ceramic implants. Eighty 3-unit FDPs supported by 160 zirconia-implants (ceramic.implant; vitaclinical) were divided into 4 groups (n = 20 each): Group Z-HT: 3Y-TZP monolithic-zirconia (Vita-YZ-HT); Group Z-ST: 4Y-TZP monolithic-zirconia (Vita-YZ-ST); Group FL: 3Y-TZP zirconia (Vita-YZ-HT) with facial-veneer (Vita-VM9); Group RL (Rapid-layer): PICN “table-top” (Vita-Enamic), 3Y-TZP-framework (Vita-YZ-HT). Half of the test samples (n = 10/group) were fatigued in a mouth-motion chewing-simulator (F = 98 N, 1.2 million-cycles) with simultaneous thermocycling (5−55 °C). All specimens (fatigued and non-fatigued) were afterwards exposed to single-load-to-failure-testing (Z010, Zwick). Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc tests and two-sample t-tests (p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected where appropriate). All specimens withstood fatigue application. While the effect of fatigue was not significant in any group (p = 0.714), the choice of material had a significant effect (p < 0.001). Material FL recorded the highest failure loads, followed by Z-ST, Z-HT and RL, both with and without fatigue application. Taken together, all tested FDP material combinations survived chewing forces that exceeded physiological levels. Bi-Layer FL and monolithic Z-ST showed the highest resilience and might serve as reliable prosthetic reconstruction concepts for 3-unit FDPs on ceramic implants.