Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Crowns Fabricated With Gold Cylinders

Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to determine the mean marginal discrepancy of metal-ceramic crowns fabricated with gold cylinders and cemented on implant abutments. These discrepancies were then compared with those measured previously for implant-supported ceramic crowns. Materials and Methods Fifteen Nobel BioCare CeraOne abutments were connected to implant fixtures embedded in acrylic resin blocks. Marginal discrepancies were determined for gold cylinders, gold cylinders plus ceramic alloy (metal frameworks), completed metal-ceramic crowns, and cemented metal-ceramic crowns using a stereomicroscope equipped with a video camera linked to a computer. A Hotelling's T² test (p .05) was used to evaluate potential differences in mean marginal discrepancies among groups. Results The mean marginal discrepancies were: 1) gold cylinders, 7.56 ± 2.73 μm; 2) metal frameworks, 6.21 ± 1.34 μm; 3) metal-ceramic crowns, 11.06 ± 3.21 μm; and 4) zinc-phosphate cemented crowns, 31.47 ± 6.65 μm. No significant difference between gold cylinders and metal frameworks was found. Mean marginal discrepancies for metal-ceramic crowns were significantly greater than discrepancies for cast gold cylinders. Cemented-crown mean marginal discrepancy was significantly greater than all other means. Conclusions Cemented metal-ceramic crowns fabricated using proprietary gold cylinders exhibited well-fitting margins (31.47 μm).     

Strength and mode of failure of single implant all-ceramic abutment restorations under static load.

The strength and mode of failure of three different designs of custom-made all-ceramic implant abutments fabricated by milling of In-Ceram sintered ceramic blocks were compared with the conventional CeraOne system under static load. Four test groups were formed with different locations of abutment screws. In three test groups, In-Ceram crowns were fabricated for placement on the all-ceramic abutments, and in one test group, a veneer porcelain was fired directly on the abutment; crowns in the control group were fabricated using the CeraOne system. Ten-mm-long Br?nemark implants were placed into a brass block that allowed loading at a 30-degree angle to the long axis. The test group in which the veneer porcelain was fired directly on the all-ceramic abutments was the weakest, and it showed fractures at a mean value of 236 N. The fracture strength of the three other test groups was dependent on the extension of the crown margin relative to the location of the screw head. The test group that had the screw on the top compressing the entire ceramic abutment showed a mean value of 422 N that was similar to the results that were achieved with the CeraOne system (427 N). The weakest link in the all-ceramic single implant restorations was the abutment screw in which the bending began at approximately 190 N.     

Clinical outcome study of customized zirconia abutments for single-implant restorations

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the clinical performance of cemented customized zirconia abutments. Additionally, the marginal fit between the selected implant components was measured and the clinical gingival response was monitored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were consecutively selected for a prospective study of 30 implant-supported single-tooth restorations. Customized titanium post and zirconia abutment complexes were prepared, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was used to study bicomponent marginal gaps. The abutments were screwed onto the implants and restored with all-ceramic crowns. Plaque and gingival indices were recorded at 6 monthly intervals over a 36- to 44-month period. RESULTS: SEM analysis showed mean marginal gaps of 10.161 microm (SD: 0.7) horizontally and 4.783 microm (SD: 0.67) vertically. Abutment fractures and screw loosening were neither reported nor observed throughout the clinical observation period. Mean Plaque Index scores were 0.57 (SD: 0.32) on abutments and 0.74 (SD: 0.34) on teeth, while mean Gingival Index scores were 0.54 (SD: 0.2) on abutments and 0.72 (SD: 0.3) on teeth. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest that metallic-zirconia abutments may be comparable to currently available esthetic implant abutments.     

Influence of firing cycles on the margin distortion of 3 all-ceramic crown systems

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although all-ceramic restorations are widely used, there is a lack of information about how the fit is affected by fabrication procedures. The adequacy of the fit of all-ceramic restorations has been questioned. PURPOSE: This study examined the effect of porcelain and glaze firing cycles on the fit of 3 types of all-ceramic crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten standardized all-ceramic crowns were fabricated on a metal die from each of 3 systems: conventional In-Ceram, copy-milled In-Ceram, and copy-milled feldspathic crowns. Copings of the conventional and copy-milled In-Ceram crowns and nonglazed copy-milled feldspathic crowns served as the control. A device was used to apply a uniform load on specimens during measurement and to reposition the specimens on the measurement device after each manufacturing process. The specimens were not cemented and were measured on the metal die using a profile projector. Measurements were recorded at 18 points selected along horizontal and vertical planes. The crown systems were compared by use of the Student t test and 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data of measurements repeated at identical locations were analyzed with a multivariate repeated-measures ANOVA. The Bonferroni post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The conventional In-Ceram (57 +/- 24 microm) and copy-milled In-Ceram (57 +/- 32 microm) crowns demonstrated nearly identical marginal discrepancy values, followed by the copy-milled feldspathic crowns with a mean of 17 +/- 12 microm in the vertical plane. The copy-milled In-Ceram crowns had a mean horizontal discrepancy value of -12 +/- 4 microm, followed by the copy-milled feldspathic crowns with a mean of -4 +/- 5 microm and the conventional In-Ceram crowns with a mean of -6 +/- 4 microm. Statistical analyses demonstrated no significant differences in the marginal discrepancy values among the 3 all-ceramic crown systems, except for the horizontal discrepancy values between the conventional and copy-milled In-Ceram crowns after the porcelain firing cycle. Results indicated that the addition of porcelain to the copings caused a significant change ( P <.05) in the marginal fit of the crowns, except for the fit in the horizontal plane of the conventional In-Ceram crowns. However, no significant changes occurred in the fit of the 3 all-ceramic crowns after the glaze firing cycle. There were significant differences in the marginal discrepancy values among the measurement locations ( P <.05), and the discrepancy value at each location was independent of the mean of the entire crown. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the 3 all-ceramic crown systems demonstrated a comparable and acceptable marginal fit. The porcelain firing cycle affected the marginal fit of the all-ceramic crowns. However, the glaze firing cycle had no significant effect on fit. The conventional and copy-milled In-Ceram crowns demonstrated medial deformations at the labial and palatal surfaces that might result in occlusal displacement of the crown.     

不同颈缘弯曲度和肩台形态的泽康全瓷冠的精度

目的调查不同颈缘弯曲度和肩台形态的泽康CAD／CAM全瓷冠的边缘精度。方法准备6种不同形态的基牙（弯曲度：1mm,3mm,5ram;肩台外形：圆弧肩台,直角肩台）。制作30个泽康CAD／CAM全瓷冠（每种肩台各5个）,测定陶瓷基底冠和全瓷冠的边缘缝隙。采用双因子ANOVA分析后用T检验测定有无统计学差异。结果弯曲度1mm,3mm,5mm圆弧肩台的泽康全瓷冠的边缘缝隙分别为51（21）μm,53（22）μm,54（20）μm。弯曲度1mm,3mm,5mm直角肩台的泽康全瓷冠的边缘缝隙分别为49（18）μm,51（19）μm,50（22）μm。统计结果显示6种基牙之间没有显著性差异。结论泽康全瓷冠有良好的边缘精度,颈缘弯曲度和肩台形态对泽康全瓷冠的边缘精度没有显著影响。     

Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments

Background: Studies focusing on the marginal accuracy of all‐ceramic crowns on implant abutments are in short supply. Purpose: This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of all‐ceramic crowns on different implant abutments. Materials and Methods: Ninety‐six standardized maxillary central incisor crowns (48 alumina and 48 zirconia) were fabricated for each of the six test groups (n = 16) (Ti1, titanium abutments–alumina crowns; Ti2, titanium abutments–zirconia crowns; Al1, alumina abutments–alumina crowns; Al2, alumina abutments–zirconia crowns; Zr1, zirconia abutments–alumina crowns; Zr2, zirconia abutments–zirconia crowns). The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent. The marginal gaps were examined on epoxy replicas before and after luting as well as after masticatory simulation at 200× magnification. Results: The geometrical mean (95% confidence limits) marginal gap values before cementation, after cementation, and after masticatory simulation were group Ti1: 39(37–42), 57(53–62), and 49(46–53); group Ti2: 43(40–47), 71(67–76), and 64(59–69); group Al1: 57(54–61), 87(85–90), and 67(65–69); group Al2: 66(63–69), 96(90–101), and 75(72–78); group Zr1: 54(51–57), 79(76–82), and 65(63–67); and group Zr2: 64(60–68), 85(80–91), and 75(70–81). The comparison between non‐cemented and cemented stages in each group demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap values after cementation in all groups (p < .001), while the comparison between cemented and aged stages in each group showed a significant decrease in the marginal gap values in groups Al1, Al2, and Zr1 (p < .0001). This reduction was not significant for groups Ti1, Ti2, and Zr2 (p > .05). Conclusion: The marginal accuracy of all tested restorations meets the requirements for clinical acceptance.     

The Procera AllCeram system

The Procera AllCeram system is indicated for manufacturing all-ceramic crowns for single-tooth restorations in the anterior and posterior regions. In addition, it is possible to create metal-free superstructures on CeraOne abutments from the Br?nemark implant system or crowns on individually prepared aluminum oxide abutments (CerAdapt). The Procera copings, which are manufactured using computer-aided design/manufacturing technology, are characterized by very good mechanical properties. Ceramic veneers tailored to the copings offer excellent esthetics, favorable abrasion behavior, and an ideal surface structure for non-inflammatory apposition of the periodontal or periimplant tissues. The present article offers an overview of previous scientific studies, describes clinical and laboratory procedures, and presents case reports.     

A prospective clinical evaluation of different single-tooth restoration designs on osseointegrated implants. A 3-year follow-up of Brånemark implants

Since single-tooth implant restorations were introduced 12 years ago (Jemt 1986), there has been continuous development both in the technical design and the aesthetic outcome of the treatment. In order to ensure high quality in single-tooth implant treatments a clinical follow-up study was carried out on patients treated with modifications to the original regimen. In this study 69 consecutive patients were provided with 80 single-tooth implant restorations. The patients were followed for 3 years. There was continuous development of the prosthetic design during the time of the study, allowing us to analyse possible prognostic differences for the different prosthetic treatments. This study confirms earlier reports which describe the single-tooth implant treatment as a safe method with few surgical complications and minimal marginal bone loss. Only 1 implant was lost during the follow-up period and the average marginal bone loss was 0.48 mm over the 3-year follow-up period. Crowns veneered with acrylic and with gold casted directly to the abutments, screwed onto the implants, led to recurring prosthetic complications and gave an appearance of rapid ageing. The first generation of crowns made following the Cera-One design, sometimes produced a gap between the crown and the abutment associated with significant marginal bone loss during the first year. Few surgical or prosthetic complications were noted with cemented all-ceramic constructions, although the number of these crowns in this study was limited.     

A study on the fracture strength of implant-supported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare five different abutment-crown combinations for single implant-supported restorations regarding their capabilities to withstand loads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty implants were placed into resin blocks, and the restorations were connected to the implants. The five tested restorations were: (1) metal-ceramic crowns cemented to titanium abutments, (2) In-Ceram crowns cemented to titanium abutments, (3) Celay feldspathic crowns cemented to titanium abutments, (4) In-Ceram crowns cemented to milled ceramic abutments, and (5) Celay feldspathic crowns cemented to milled ceramic abutments. The specimens were loaded at 0- and 45-degree angles to the long axis, and the load values at the moment of failure were recorded using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: The fracture strengths under vertical loading were greater than those under oblique loading. The fracture strengths of metal-ceramic crowns cemented to the titanium abutments were higher than those of all-ceramic crowns cemented on the milled ceramic abutments, regardless of loading direction. There were no differences in the fracture strengths of the ceramic crowns between the two different abutment types under oblique loading. CONCLUSION: All-ceramic crowns on the milled ceramic abutments were weaker than the metal-ceramic crowns on the titanium abutments under oblique loading.     

Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI)® Dental Implant System: an in vitro study

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the marginal fit of crowns on the Straumann (ITI)^® Dental Implant System with special consideration of different casting dental materials. Material and methods: Sixty porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal crowns were fabricated: 18 crowns on standard cone abutments with an impression cylinder, partially prefabricated analogs, no coping and screw‐retained (A); 18 crowns on solid abutments without an impression device, no analogs, no coping and cemented (B); and 18 crowns on solid abutments using an impression transfer cap, an analog with a shoulder, no coping and cemented (C). In each group, six crowns were made on epoxy mastercasts (Bluestar^®), six on synthetic plaster (Moldasynt^®) and six on super hard stone (Fujirock^®). Six additional crowns were fabricated with the transversal screw retention system onto the Octa^® system with impression transfer caps, metal analogs, gold copings and screw‐retained (D). Impregum^® was used as impression material. Crowns of B and C were cemented with KetacCem^®. Crowns of A and D were fixed with an occlusal screw torqued at 15 N cm. Crowns were embedded, cut and polished. Under a light microscope using a magnification of × 100, the distance between the crown margin (CM) and the shoulder (marginal gap, MG) and the distance between the CM and the end of the shoulder (crown length, CL) was measured. Results: MGs were 15.4±13.2 μm (A), 21.2±23.1 μm (B), 11±12.1 μm (C) and 10.4±9.3 μm (D). No statistically significantly differences using either of the casting materials were observed. CLs were ?21.3±24.8 μm (A), 3±28.9 μm (B), 0.5±22 μm (C) and 0.1±15.8 μm (D). Crowns were shorter on synthetic casting materials compared with stone casts (P<0.005). Conclusions: CMs fit precisely with both cemented and screw‐retained versions as well as when using no, partial or full analogs.     

Marginal discrepancies and leakage of all-ceramic crowns: influence of luting agents and aging conditions

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the marginal discrepancies and leakage of all-ceramic crowns cemented with different luting agents after fatigue tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight all-ceramic crowns were cemented onto natural molars. Zinc-phosphate cement, compomer cement, and an adhesive composite resin luting system were used in 16 specimens each. Sixteen metal-ceramic crowns were cemented with zinc-phosphate cement as a control. Half of the specimens in each group were fatigued in a chewing simulator for 600,000 loading cycles with 3,500 thermocycles. The others received the 3,500 thermocycles only. An impression-replica technique and SEM were used for evaluation of the marginal discrepancies. Leakage of the specimens was microscopically assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between marginal discrepancies of the groups, with the exception of porcelain shoulder margins in the metal-ceramic group, which had significantly larger discrepancies (P < .01). There was no significant effect of the fatigue tests on marginal discrepancies. However, significant differences of leakage were found between the groups cemented with the different luting agents after both fatigue tests. The adhesive composite resin luting system demonstrated the least leakage. The compomer cement showed an intermediate level of leakage, and the zinc-phosphate cement showed severe leakage that extended through the dentinal tubules to the pulp chambers. No significantly different effect of the two fatigue tests on the leakage was found. CONCLUSION: The adhesive composite resin luting system showed clinically acceptable marginal discrepancies and an excellent ability to minimize leakage of all-ceramic crowns.     

The effect of all-ceramic and porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tissue color: a randomized controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to test the color-change effect of all-ceramic restorations compared with porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tissue. Thirty patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 15 subjects each. The all-ceramic group received all-ceramic crowns on aluminum oxide-based abutments, while the PFM group received crowns on titanium or gold abutments. A reflectance spectrophotometer was used to measure the color difference (deltaE(Implant)) between the midfacial peri-implant mucosa before and after restoration insertion. The color difference (deltaE(Tooth-implant)) between the midfacial peri-implant mucosa and the gingival margin of the corresponding neighboring tooth was tested. The mucosal thickness was measured midfacially around the implant (MT(Implant)) and neighboring tooth (MT(Tooth)). deltaE(Implant) values were similar for the all-ceramic (7.4 +/- 2.7) and PFM groups (7.6 +/- 2.8). The all-ceramic group induced significantly less visible mucosal color change (3.4 +/- 1.4) compared to the PFM group (5.2 +/- 2.3). The MT(Implant) value of the all-ceramic group was 3.4 +/- 0.8 mm, while that of the PFM group was 2.9 +/- 0.9 mm, which was not significantly different. Significant differences were found when comparing MT(Implant) (3.1 +/- 0.9) and MT(Tooth) (1.2 +/- 0.3) values for test and control groups. All-ceramic restorations revealed a better color match to the neighboring teeth than PFM restorations.     

A 4-Year Prospective Study to Assess Peri-Implant Hard and Soft Tissues Adjacent to Titanium Versus Gold-Alloy Abutments in Cemented Single Implant Crowns

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to compare titanium and gold-alloy abutments when used with cemented, implant-supported single-tooth crowns. For 4 years following prosthodontic rehabilitation, these abutments were evaluated with respect to peri-implant marginal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the years 1998 to 2000, 20 patients were selected from a patient population receiving treatment in the Implantology Department at the University of Padova, Italy. They all presented with single-tooth bilateral edentulous sites in the premolar/molar region with adequate bone width, similar bone height on each side, and an occlusal scheme that allowed for the establishment of identical occlusal cusp/fossa contacts on each side. Each subject received two identical implants (one in each edentulous site). One was randomly selected to be restored with a titanium abutment and a cemented implant-supported single-tooth crown, and the other was restored with a gold-alloy abutment and a cemented implant-supported single tooth crown. Data on peri-implant marginal bone levels and soft tissue parameters were collected for 4 years after abutment and crown insertion placement and analyzed to determine whether there was a significant (p< .001) difference with respect to the type of abutments (titanium vs. gold alloy) used. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study. All 40 implants survived, resulting in a cumulative implant success rate of 100%. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to peri-implant marginal bone levels and soft tissue parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that there was no evidence of different response with the peri-implant marginal bone and soft tissue when titanium or gold-alloy abutments were used in conjunction with the cemented, single-tooth implant restorations provided for this limited patient population. There was no evidence of different behavior of peri-implant marginal bone and of peri-implant soft tissue when titanium abutments or gold-alloy abutments were used for cemented single-tooth implant restorations in this limited patient population.     

Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of a new experimental all-ceramic system before and after cementation

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the marginal fit of inlay and crown abutments for fixed partial dentures (FPD) made from a new all-ceramic material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were selected for the study. After abutment preparation, impressions were made and master dies were fabricated. FPDs were made with the experimental heat-pressed lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic following the manufacturer's recommendations. At random, one abutment of each FPD was chosen for evaluation (11 crown and 8 inlay abutments). Impressions of the restoration margins were taken before and after adhesive cementation. Replicas of the abutment margins were investigated by SEM. The marginal discrepancies were evaluated in sections of 200 microm. The highest value of each section was applied, and the mean of all sections of each replica was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The median of the marginal discrepancies before cementation was 96 microm for crowns and 89 microm for inlays. After adhesive cementation, the median increased for crowns to 130 microm and for inlays to 92 microm, a significant increase in the marginal discrepancies caused by cementation for crowns, but not for inlays. There were no significant differences between the discrepancies of crowns and inlays before or after cementation. CONCLUSION: The maximum marginal discrepancies found in this study were between 50 and 265 microm before cementation and between 70 and 285 microm after cementation, with no significant differences between the means for crowns and inlays. Adhesive cementation caused a significant increase of the marginal discrepancies for crown, but not inlay, abutments.     

Alumina ceramic implant abutments used for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 1- to 3-year multicenter study

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare results after 1 and 3 years when single crowns supported by CerAdapt (test) ceramic abutments or CeraOne (control) titanium abutments were loaded. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material was divided into two groups: in group A, 69 (34 test, 35 control) abutments/crowns from all involved clinics were followed for 1 year; and in group B, 20 (10 test, 10 control) abutments/crowns from one of the clinics were followed for 3 years. RESULTS: No implant failed, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% for the implants. Two CerAdapt abutments in group A fractured, giving a cumulative success rate of 93% for the CerAdapt and 100% for the CeraOne abutments after 1 year. No abutment failed in group B, giving a cumulative success rate of 100% both for the CerAdapt and the CeraOne abutments between 1 and 3 years. The CerAdapt fractures might have been due to the fact that the abutments were impaired through too-extensive preparation and/or had been exposed to a too-high bending moment. Almost no marginal bone loss was recorded, indicating a stable bone situation both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments on single-tooth implants. Healthy conditions, with a relatively stable level of the periimplant mucosa in relation to the abutment/crown, were recorded for soft tissues both at CerAdapt and CeraOne abutments. Both clinicians and patients rated the esthetic result as excellent for practically all cases. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the esthetic possibilities and the safety of single-tooth replacement when accepted treatment concepts are followed and documented components are used. The tested abutments worked well, although the fractured CerAdapt abutments indicate that ceramic abutments are more sensitive to handling procedures than the titanium abutments.     

Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: an in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: High-strength ceramic materials can be used to fabricate esthetic and stable implant-supported single-tooth restorations. No study was identified that compared the fracture resistance of individual components of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorative systems after artificial aging. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations consisting of alumina all-ceramic restorations on different implant abutments and to identify the weakest component of the restorative system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-eight standardized maxillary central incisor alumina crowns (Procera) were fabricated for each of the 3 test groups (n = 16) (Control group Ti, titanium abutments; Group Al, alumina abutments; Group Zr, zirconia abutments) for the Replace implant system. The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent (Panavia 21) and artificially aged through dynamic loading and thermal cycling. Afterwards, all specimens were tested for fracture resistance using compressive load on the palatal surfaces of the crowns. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and post hoc Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to test for differences in fracture resistance values (alpha = .05). RESULTS: All test specimens survived the artificial aging process using simulated oral conditions. No screw loosening was recorded. The median fracture resistance was 1454 N, 422.5 N, and 443.6 N for groups Ti, Al, and Zr, respectively. Significant differences were found for the fracture resistance comparisons of group Ti with groups Al and Zr (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < .001). The test results for the comparison of groups Al and Zr were not significant. CONCLUSION: All 3 implant-supported restorations have the potential to withstand physiologic occlusal forces applied in the anterior region.     

In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because of their specific mechanical properties, all-ceramic restorations demonstrate a lower fracture resistance than ceramic restorations supported by metal substructures. However, advances have been made in the fabrication of high-strength all-ceramic abutments for anterior implants. No previous study has compared the fracture loads between 2 different all-ceramic abutments restored by glass-ceramic crowns. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to quantify the fracture load of implanted-supported Al(2)O(3) and ZrO(2) abutments restored with glass-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two ceramic abutments were tested: an Al(2)O(3) abutment (CerAdapt) and a ZrO(2) abutment (Wohlwend Innovative). The abutments (n = 10) were placed on Br?nemark dental implants and prepared for restoration with glass-ceramic crowns (IPS Empress). After fabrication, in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines, the crowns were bonded to the all-ceramic abutments with a dual-polymerizing resin luting agent. The fracture loads (N) were determined by force application at an angle of 30 degrees by use of a computer-controlled universal testing device. The data were analyzed with the unpaired t test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed significant differences between both groups (P=.001) of all-ceramic abutments, with mean fracture load values of 280.1 N (+/- 103.1) for the Al(2)O(3) abutments and 737.6 N (+/- 245.0) for the ZrO(2) abutments. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, both all-ceramic abutments exceeded the established values for maximum incisal forces reported in the literature (90 to 370 N). The ZrO(2) abutments were more than twice as resistant to fracture as the Al(2)O(3)-abutments.     

Marginal integrity of turkom-cera compared to other all-ceramic materials: effect of finish line

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation of Turkom-Cera all-ceramic crowns compared to In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram systems. The influence of finish line design (chamfer or shoulder) on the marginal adaptation of Turkom-Cera all-ceramic crowns was also investigated. Thirty human premolars were prepared with chamfer margins and assigned to either the Turkom-Cera, In-Ceram, or Procera system group. In addition, 10 premolars were prepared with rounded shoulder finish lines and assigned to an additional Turkom-Cera group. Ceramic copings (0.6-mm thick) were fabricated for each group following the manufacturers' instructions. The copings were seated on abutments using a special holding device that facilitated uniform loading, and marginal adaptation was assessed using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, the Tukey HSD post hoc test, and an independent samples t test. There was a statistically significant difference regarding marginal adaptation among the three all-ceramic systems (P < .05). There were no significant differences in the mean marginal discrepancies of Turkom-Cera crowns among chamfer and shoulder finish line groups (P > .05). Within the limitations of this study, the marginal discrepancies were all within the clinically acceptable standard. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:379-381.     

Cemented CeraOne and porcelain fused to TiAdapt abutment single-implant crown restorations: a 10-year comparative follow-up study

Background: Long‐term data comparing cemented and noncemented single‐implant restorations has not been reported. Aim: To compare clinical and radiographic performance of single‐implant crown restorations made by either directly baked porcelain to custom‐made TiAdapt? titanium abutments (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) (test) or cement crowns onto CeraOne® (Nobel Biocare AB) abutments (control) after 10 years in function. Materials and Methods: Altogether, 35 consecutive patients were provided with 41 turned single Brånemark System® implants (Nobel Biocare AB) in the partially edentulous upper jaw. By random, 15 and 20 patients were provided with 18 test and 23 control implant crowns, respectively. Thereafter, clinical and radiographic data were collected and compared between the two groups. Results: None of the implants were found loose during the follow‐up period (100%). Few clinical problems were observed, and the overall average marginal bone loss was 0.26 mm (SD 0.64) during 10 years in function. After the final tightening of the crowns, no significant differences were observed between the test and control groups (p > .05). The head of the implants was placed on an average 6.3 mm (SD 2.24) below the cement/enamel junction of the adjacent teeth (range 2.5–10.0 mm). Implants with reported mechanical and/or mucosal problems or placed more apically in relation to the adjacent teeth did not present more bone loss as compared with implants with no problems or placed more coronally, respectively (p > .05). Conclusions: There seems to be no obvious clinical or radiographic differences between the test and control single‐implant restorations during 10 years of follow‐up. Occasionally, some restorations presented loose abutment screws and/or fistulas during follow‐up. This implies a certain need for maintenance where a one‐piece single‐implant protocol (test) allows both for a simple clinical procedure at placement without cementation problems, as well as for an easy and simple maintenance of installed single implant crowns in long‐term function.     

Effect of virtual cement gap settings on the marginal fit of cemented resin-ceramic crowns on implant abutments

Statement of problemAgreement on the perfect virtual cement space value for computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) implant-supported resin-ceramic crowns with the best marginal adaptation is lacking. The range of cement gap settings in some CAD design software programs is wide (0 to 200 μm), and manufacturer recommendations regarding the best cement gap setting for certain types of ceramics is not specific.PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of virtual cement gap settings on the marginal fit of cemented resin-ceramic crowns on implant abutments.Material and methodsThirty implant analogs and matching stock abutments were coupled and implanted into autopolymerizing acrylic resin blocks. Three groups (n=10) of resin-ceramic molar crowns with 3 different virtual cement space settings (40, 60, and 100 μm) were designed by using a CAD design software program. The crowns were cemented over their corresponding abutments under a static load by using a specially designed cementing device. A scanning electron microscope was used to measure the mean vertical marginal gap (MG) for each group, where a total of 120 measurements for each of the 3 groups (12 sites per crown and 10 crowns per group) were evaluated. One-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=.05).ResultsA significant difference (P<.001) was found between the MG values of the resin-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated by using the 3 cement space settings. The smallest MG was obtained with the 60-μm setting as compared with the 40-μm and 100-μm settings.ConclusionsA limited inverse relation was found between the MGs of CAD-CAM-fabricated resin-ceramic implant-supported crowns and the cement gap settings in the exocad software program. The smallest MGs were obtained when a 60-μm cement space value was used (P<.001).