Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This in vitro study investigated the fracture behaviour of implant–implant-supported and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDP) using zirconium dioxide implant abutments (FRIADENT® CERCON® abutments, DENTSPLY Friadent). Six different test groups (n = 8) were prepared. Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 represented an implant–implant-supported FDP condition, whereas groups 3 and 6 simulated an implant–tooth-supported FDP condition. The second right premolar of the mandible was replaced with a pontic tooth. In groups 2 and 5, implant abutments were individualised by circumferential preparation. XiVe® S plus screw implants (DENTSPLY Friadent) that were 4.5 mm (first molar) and 3.8 mm (first premolar) in diameter and 11 mm in length and metal tooth analogues with simulated periodontal mobility, representing the first right premolar, were mounted in a polymethyl methacrylate block. The FDPs were cemented with KetacCem (3 M Espe GmbH, Germany). Groups 4, 5, and 6 were thermomechanically loaded (thermal and mechanical cycling (TCML) = 1.2 × 106; 10,000 × 5°/55°) and subjected to static loading until failure. Statistical analysis of data obtained for the force at fracture was performed using non-parametric tests. All samples tested survived TCML. In the implant–implant-supported groups, circumferential abutment preparation resulted in a tendency to lower fracture forces compared to groups with unprepared abutments (group 1, 472.75 ± 24.71 N; group 2, 423.75 ± 48.48 N; group 4, 647.13 ± 39.10 N; group 5, 555.86 ± 30.34 N). The implant–tooth-supported restorations exhibited higher fracture loads (group 3, 736.25 ± 82.23 N; group 6, 720.75 ± 48.99 N) than the implant–implant-supported restorations which did not possess circumferentially individualised abutments. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the non-artificially aged groups. Implant–tooth-supported FDP restorations did exhibit an increased fracture load compared to implant–implant-supported FDP restorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barboza EP, Caula AL, Carvalho WR (2002) Crestal bone loss around submerged and exposed unloaded dental implants: a radiographic and microbiological descriptive study. Implant Dent 11:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Misch CE, Dietsh-Misch F, Hoar J, Beck G, Hazen R, Misch CM (1999) A bone quality-based implant system: first year of prosthetic loading. J Oral Implantol 25:185–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1997) The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 24:568–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T (2008) The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:635–641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J (1998) The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 25:721–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Watkin A, Kerstein RB (2008) Improving darkened anterior peri-implant tissue color with zirconia custom implant abutments. Compend Contin Educ Dent 29(238–240):242

    Google Scholar 

  7. Linkevicius T, Apse P (2008) Influence of abutment material on stability of peri-implant tissues: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:449–456

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Degidi M, Artese L, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Gehrke P, Piattelli A (2006) Inflammatory infiltrate, microvessel density, nitric oxide synthase expression, vascular endothelial growth factor expression, and proliferative activity in peri-implant soft tissues around titanium and zirconium oxide healing caps. J Periodontol 77:73–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brodbeck U (2003) The ZiReal post: a new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent 15:10–23 discussion 24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Butz F, Heydecke G, Okutan M, Strub JR (2005) Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil 32:838–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gehrke P, Dhom G, Brunner J, Wolf D, Degidi M, Piattelli A (2006) Zirconium implant abutments: fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int 37:19–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Scharer P (2004) Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 17:285–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kolbeck C, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2008) Fracture force of tooth–tooth- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed partial dentures using titanium vs. customised zirconia implant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1049–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andersson B, Glauser R, Maglione M, Taylor A (2003) Ceramic implant abutments for short-span FPDs: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 16:640–646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH (2009) Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:802-808

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Siegenthaler D, Holderegger C, Hammerle CH (2009) Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: preliminary results at 1year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Canullo L, Morgia P, Marinotti F (2007) Preliminary laboratory evaluation of bicomponent customized zirconia abutments. Int J Prosthodont 20:486–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Att W, Kurun S, Gerds T, Strub JR (2006) Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations after exposure to the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 33:380–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Tashkandi E, Dib S, Salameh Z, Almas K (2008) Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 9:41–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adatia ND, Bayne SC, Cooper LF, Thompson JY (2009) Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J Prosthodont 18:17–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yildirim M, Fischer H, Marx R, Edelhoff D (2003) In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 90:325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawn BR, Pajares A, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Polack MA, Lloyd IK et al (2004) Materials design in the performance of all-ceramic crowns. Biomaterials 25:2885–2892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ohlmann B, Marienburg K, Gabbert O, Hassel A, Gilde H, Rammelsberg P (2009) Fracture-load values of all-ceramic cantilevered FPDs with different framework designs. Int J Prosthodont 22:49–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM (2004) Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 31:18–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nishigawa K, Bando E, Nakano M (2001) Quantitative study of bite force during sleep associated bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 28:485–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz-Arad D, Samet N, Samet N (1999) Single tooth replacement of missing molars: a retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol 70:449–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nickenig HJ, Schafer C, Spiekermann H (2006) Survival and complication rates of combined tooth–implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:506–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gross M, Laufer BZ (1997) Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part I: laboratory and clinical studies. J Oral Rehabil 24:863–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Laufer BZ, Gross M (1998) Splinting osseointegrated implants and natural teeth in rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Part II: principles and applications. J Oral Rehabil 25:69–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones JD (2000) Guidelines for splinting implants. J Prosthet Dent 84:210–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin CL, Wang JC (2003) Nonlinear finite element analysis of a splinted implant with various connectors and occlusal forces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:331–340

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Astrand P, Borg K, Gunne J, Olsson M (1991) Combination of natural teeth and osseointegrated implants as prosthesis abutments: a 2-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:305–312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fugazzotto PA, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Neuendorff G (1999) Implant/tooth-connected restorations utilizing screw-fixed attachments: a survey of 3, 096 sites in function for 3 to 14years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:819–823

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hosny M, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Naert I (2000) Within-subject comparison between connected and nonconnected tooth-to-implant fixed partial prostheses: up to 14-year follow-up study. Int J Prosthodont 13:340–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lindh T, Back T, Nystrom E, Gunne J (2001) Implant versus tooth-implant-supported prostheses in the posterior maxilla: a 2-year report. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:441–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pesun IJ (1997) Intrusion of teeth in the combination implant-to-natural-tooth fixed partial denture: a review of the theories. J Prosthodont 6:268–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nyman SR, Lang NP (1994) Tooth mobility and the biological rationale for splinting teeth. Periodontol 2000 4:15–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ (2008) Biomechanical interactions in tooth–implant-supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the number of splinted teeth and connector type: a finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:107–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M (2007) Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):97–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Torbjorner A, Fransson B (2004) A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 17:369–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR (2002) Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 87:438–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Piconi C, Maccauro G (1999) Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 20:1–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dentsply Friadent and DeguDent for contribution of materials, as well as MDT Martin Propson for his support in preparing the tested specimens.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Sciences, Dental School and Clinics, Saarland University, Homburg Campus, Bldg. 71.2, 66421, Homburg, Saarland, Germany

    Frank Philipp Nothdurft, Sabine Merker & Peter Reinhard Pospiech

Authors
  1. Frank Philipp Nothdurft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sabine Merker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Reinhard Pospiech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Philipp Nothdurft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nothdurft, F.P., Merker, S. & Pospiech, P.R. Fracture behaviour of implant–implant- and implant–tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses utilising zirconium dioxide implant abutments. Clin Oral Invest 15, 89–97 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0359-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0359-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation