The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 7 ( November, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fracture Resistance and Failure Location of Zirconium and Metallic Implant Abutments

Khalid Almas, Esam Tashkandi, Philippe Aramouni, Elie Zebouni, Salam Dib

Citation Information : Almas K, Tashkandi E, Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Dib S. Fracture Resistance and Failure Location of Zirconium and Metallic Implant Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (7):41-48.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-7-41

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and failure location of single-tooth, implant-supported, all-ceramic restorations on different implant abutments subjected to a maximum load.

Methods and Materials

Forty Certain 3i implants and 20 ITI Straumann implants were used in this study in combination with 20 UCLA abutments, 20 ZiReal abutments, and 20 synOcta Ceramic Blanks to form three groups according to abutment type. All 60 abutments were prepared with standard measurements: a 1.0 mm deep chamfer, 2.0 mm of incisal reduction, and a total height of 7 mm. Sixty IPS Empress 2 full ceramic crowns were fabricated and cemented on each abutment with a resin cement. Static loading was simulated under maximum loading and fracture locations were noted.

Results

The mean load to failure data and standard deviations for the three groups were as follows: Group 1 (792.7 N ± 122.5) and Group 3 (793.6 ± 162.3) showed no significant difference in fracture resistance while the values for specimens in Group 2 (604 N ± 191.1) had the lowest mean value and were significantly lower. In Group 1, 16 crowns and four abutment fractures were reported, while in Group 3, 17 crowns and three abutments fractured. Group 2 actually showed three types of fractures. Two specimen fractures were located at the implant level, six with fractures occuring within the Empress 2 all-ceramic crown, and the remaining 12 failures were located at the abutment level.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this laboratory study, the following conclusions were drawn:

The mean load-to-failure values for all three groups were well above the reported normal maximal incisal load range.

The load to failure for both the zirconium oxide (ZrO2) abutments (ZiReal on 3i Certain implants and synOcta Ceramic Blanks on SLA ITI Straumann implants) had mean fracture loads of 792.7 N (+122.6) and 604.2 N (+191.2), respectively.

The zirconium oxide (ZrO2) ZiReal and titanium (UCLA) abutments on the 3i Certain implants had statistically significantly higher fracture loads (792.7 N and 703.7 N, respectively) than those recorded for the 3i Ceramic Blank abutments on the SLA ITI Straumann implant (604.2 N).

The ITI Straumann Ceramic Blank abutments showed uniform fracture behavior. Fracture mainly emanated from the cervical buccal aspect of the abutment.

Clinical Significance

The three abutments tested showed they can withstand clinical loads above the normal range of mastication.

Citation

Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Tashkandi E, Dib S, Salameh Z, Almas K. Fracture Resistance and Failure Location of Zirconium and Metallic Implant Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:041-048.


PDF Share
  1. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981; 10:387-416.
  2. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;1983;843-848
  3. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant all-ceramic restorations: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95:111-6.
  4. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(3):285-90.
  5. Ceramic abutments–a new era in achieving optimal esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000; 20(1):81-91.
  6. Modified single and short span restorations supported by osseointegrated fixtures in the partially edentulous jaw. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55:243-257.
  7. Strength and mode of failure of single implant allceramic abutment restorations under static load. Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8(3):265-72.
  8. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(1):76-94.
  9. Mechanical properties and short term in vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989; 23:45-61.
  10. A new all-ceramic crown. A dense-sintered, high-purity alumina coping with porcelain. Acta Odontol Scand, 1993; 51(1):59-64.
  11. Fracture toughness of high alumina core dental ceramics: the effect of water and artificial saliva. Int J Prosthodont, 1993; 6:546-52.
  12. Relative flexural strength of six new ceramic materials. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8:239-46.
  13. Reliability and properties of ground Y-TZP-zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res, 2002; 8:487-91.
  14. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 4:325-31.
  15. An in vitro evaluation of ZiReal abutments with hexagonal connection: in original state and following abutment preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20:108-14.
  16. Two-year clinical evaluation of lithia-disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 2006; 22:1008-1013.
  17. Fracture behavior of lithia-disilicate- and leucite-based ceramics. Dent Mater 2004; 20:956-62.
  18. The Empress rechnique: a new technique for the fabrication of full ceramic crowns, inlays, and veneers. Quintessenz Zahntech 1990; 16:966-78.
  19. Competing damage modes in all-ceramic crowns: fatigue and lifetime. Key Eng Mater 2005; 17:697-700.
  20. Functional state, bite force and postural muscle activity in patients with osseointegrated oral implant bridges. Acta Odontol Scand, 1979; 34:195-206.
  21. The effect of pressure on a maximum incisal bite force in man. Arch Oral Biol 1997;42:11-7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.