Zusammenfassung
PURPOSE. To investigate the fatigue and fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic molar crowns on dental implants and human teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Molar crowns (n=48; n=8/group) were fabricated of a lithium-disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (N). Surfaces were polished (P) or glazed (G). Crowns were tested on ...
Zusammenfassung
PURPOSE. To investigate the fatigue and fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic molar crowns on dental implants and human teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Molar crowns (n=48; n=8/group) were fabricated of a lithium-disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (N). Surfaces were polished (P) or glazed (G). Crowns were tested on human teeth (T) and implant-abutment analogues (I) simulating a chairside (C, crown bonded to abutment) or labside (L, screw channel) procedure for implant groups. Polished/glazed lithium disilicate (E) crowns (n=16) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TC: 3000x5 degrees C/3000x55 degrees C; ML: 1.2x10(6) cycles, 50 N) with antagonistic human molars (groups T) and steatite spheres (groups I) was performed under a chewing simulator. TCML crowns were then analyzed for failures (optical microscopy, SEM) and fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorow-Smirnov, one-way-ANOVA, post-hoc Bonferroni, alpha=.05). RESULTS. All crowns survived TCML and showed small traces of wear. In human teeth groups, fracture forces of N crowns varied between 1214 +/- 293 N (NPT) and 1324 +/- 498 N (NGT), differing significantly (P <=.003) from the polished reference EPT (2044 +/- 302 N). Fracture forces in implant groups varied between 934 +/- 154 N (NGI_L) and 1782 +/- 153 N (NPI_C), providing higher values for the respective chairside crowns. Differences between polishing and glazing were not significant (P >=.066) between crowns of identical materials and abutment support. CONCLUSION. Fracture resistance was influenced by the ceramic material, and partly by the tooth or implant situation and the clinical procedure (chairside/labside). Type of surface finish (polishing/glazing) had no significant influence. Clinical survival of the new glass ceramic may be comparable to lithium disilicate.
Altmetric