Volume 33, Issue 3 pp. 522-530
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fracture strength of various titanium-based, CAD-CAM and PFM implant crowns

Nicholas B. DuVall DDS, MS

Corresponding Author

Nicholas B. DuVall DDS, MS

Program Director, AEGD Residency, 96th Dental Squadron, Eglin AFB, Florida, USA

US Air Force Postgraduate Dental College, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Correspondence

Nicholas B. DuVall, US Air Force Postgraduate Dental College, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Stephen P. DeReis CDT

Stephen P. DeReis CDT

Certified Dental Technician, 81st Dental Squadron, Keesler AFB, Mississippi, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Kraig S. Vandewalle DDS, MS

Kraig S. Vandewalle DDS, MS

US Air Force Postgraduate Dental College, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Director of Dental Research, AEGD Residency, 59th Dental Training Squadron, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 November 2020
Citations: 5
Sources of Support: 81st Medical Group, Keesler AFB, MS; Protocol Number FKE20160010N.

Abstract

Objective

CAD-CAM has dramatically advanced dental restorative procedures to include implant-supported crowns. The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance following mechanical loading and thermocycling of various screw-retained and cement-retained ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate material combinations using the TiBase abutment compared to PFM implant-supported crowns.

Overview

Twelve implant restorations were fabricated for each of eight groups. Three groups were screw-retained and five groups were cement-retained implant restorations. The ceramic and polymethylmethacrylate restorations were fabricated on the TiBase abutment while the PFM restorations were fabricated on an UCLA abutment. Data were analyzed with a one way Analysis of Variance and Tukey's post-hoc test to evaluate the effect of abutment and crown type on fracture load (alpha = 0.05). A significant difference was found in the maximum fracture load between groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The screw-retained implant restorations demonstrated higher fracture loads than their cement-retained counterparts. The TiBase abutment compared favorably to the UCLA abutment.

Clinical Significance

The TiBase abutment is a titanium insert which combines the esthetics of a ceramic abutment with the mechanical properties of a titanium abutment and should be considered a viable clinical alternative to the conventional implant-supported PFM crown based on theses in vitro results and in context of in vivo studies. The lithium disilicate hybrid abutment/crown implant-supported restoration utilizing the TiBase abutment may be an ideal clinical choice due to simplicity, single appointment CAD-CAM, and esthetics.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.