The Influence of Different Pontic Designs on Fracture Resistance of Implant-supported Fixed Partial Dentures Anchored in Polyurethane Simulating Bone-blocks of Two Different Densities: An In Vitro Study
Citation Information :
Othman MS, Abu-Eittah MR. The Influence of Different Pontic Designs on Fracture Resistance of Implant-supported Fixed Partial Dentures Anchored in Polyurethane Simulating Bone-blocks of Two Different Densities: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (7):684-690.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses fabricated from monolithic zirconia with different pontic framework designs and anchored in different bone-like simulation models of two different densities.
Materials and methods: A total of 60 implants were anchored in two different in vitro bone simulation models of two different densities, namely, solid polyurethane foam blocks, 20 and 10 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) to construct implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs), the pontic constructed to replace missing second premolar and first molar. Thirty models were constructed and then divided into two groups according to anchoring material D2 (n = 15) and D3 (n = 15). Each group of models was subdivided into three groups according to pontic design (n = 5). Each model was tested against fracture in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed with a two-way univariate ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). The results were statistically analyzed, and the values were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: The findings showed that neither change in pontic design nor change in bone type has a significant influence on the fracture resistance of the prostheses (p > 0.05). All the tested materials fell within the acceptable range for functioning under mastication, with a slight change in resistance when the pontic design was changed.
Conclusion: Zirconia is considered the material of choice when planning implant-supported FPDs because of its high fracture strength values. Within the limitations of this study, the pontic design and synthetic polyurethane bone-simulating model had no effect on the fracture resistance of four-unit implant-supported FPDs.
Clinical significance: This study postulated that any pontic design could be used in four units of implant-supported FPDs according to functional and aesthetic needs, as long as the histological nature of the alveolar bone falls within the D2 or D3 bone type.
Dholam KP, Gurav SV. Dental implants in irradiated jaws: A literature review. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012;8 (Suppl 1):S85–S93. DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.92220.
Dewan SK, Arora A, Sehgal M, et al. Implant failures: A broader perspective. J Dent Implant. 2015;5:53–59. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.154441.
Parmigiani-Izquierdo JM, Cabaña-Muñoz ME, Merino JJ, et al. Zirconia implants and peek restorations for the replacement of upper molars. Int J Implant Dent 2017;3:3–5. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-016- 0062-2.
Rismanchian M, Shafiei S, Nourbakhshian F, et al. Flexural strengths of implant-supported zirconia-based bridges in posterior regions. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:346–350. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6. 5.346.
Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer S, et al. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:449–456. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002.
Marini G, daRosa L, Machado P, et al. Fatigue performance analysis of strength graded zirconia polycrystals for monolithic three-unit implant-supported prostheses. J Mech Behav Biomed Mat 2023;140:105736. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105736.
Guncu M, Aktas G, Turkyilmaz I, et al. Performance of high-translucent zirconia CAD/CAM fixed dental prostheses using a digital workflow: A clinical study up to 6 years. J Dent Sci 2023;18(1):44–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.07.023.
Liu CL. Use of a modified ovate pontic in areas of ridge defects: A report of two cases. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:273–281. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00052.x.
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. Pontics and edentulous ridges. In: Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE (eds). Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. Carol Stream, IL: Quintessence; 1997. [Google Scholar].
Feldmann A, Anso J, Bell B, et al. Temperature prediction model for bone drilling based on density distribution and in vivo experiments for minimally invasive robotic cochlear implantation. Ann Biomed Eng 2016;44(5):1576–1586. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-015-1450-0.
María Melo, Javier Ata-Ali, Fadi Ata-Ali, et al. Evaluation of the maxillary midline, curve of the upper lip, smile line and tooth shape: A prospective study of 140 Caucasian patients. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):42. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1031-y.
Yamaguchi Y, Shiota M, Fuji M, et al. Development, and application of a direct method to observe the implant/bone interface using simulated bone. Springer plus 2016;5:494. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2116-6.
MedCalc Statistical Software version 19.0.5 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium; Available from: https://www.medcalc.org; 2019).
Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. Failed dental implants: Diagnosis, removal, and survival of reimplantation. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:835–842. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.28.
Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1985. pp. 11–76.
Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, et al. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: Considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:401–412. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01022.x.
Papathanasiou I, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, et al. The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):217. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01202-7.
Jovanović M, Živić M, Milosavljević M. A potential application of materials based on a polymer and CAD/CAM composite resins in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont Res 2020;65(2):137–147. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_404.
Inan O, Secilmis A, Eraslan O. Effect of pontic framework design on the fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. j appl oral sci 2009;17(5):533–538. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000500032.
Stimmelmayr M, Sagerer S, Erdelt K, et al. In vitro fatigue and fracture strength testing of one-piece zirconia implant abutments and zirconia implant abutments connected to titanium cores. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:488–493. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2772.
Gehrke P, Johannson D, Fischer C, et al. In vitro fatigue and fracture resistance of one-and two-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:546–554. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3942.
Tsumita M, Kokubo Y, Ohtsuka T, et al. Influences of core frame design on the mechanical strength of posterior all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part 1. Two-dimensional finite element analysis. Tsurumi Univ Dent J 2005;31:203–210. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01751.x.
Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, et al. The effect of core framework designs on the fracture loads of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures on posterior implants. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:503–507. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01751.x.