Comparison of the Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Contemporary Restorative Materials to Overcome the Offset of Mandibular Implant-Supported, Cement-Retained Crowns

Abstract

Background: The purpose was to compare the fracture resistance and the mode of failure of different contemporary restorative materials to restore implant supported, cement-retained mandibular molars. Methods: Two 5 × 10 mm titanium dental implants were mounted in resin blocks and prefabricated titanium and zirconia abutments were connected to each implant. Each implant received forty crowns resembling mandibular first molars. The specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10/group) for each abutment according to the type of material; Group A: porcelain fused to metal crowns; Group B: monolithic zirconia crowns; Group C: zirconia coping with ceramic veneer; Group D: all ceramic lithium disilicate crowns. Specimens were cemented to the abutments, mounted into a universal testing machine, and vertical static load was applied at a speed of 1 mm/min. The test stopped at signs of visual/audible fracture/chipping. Fracture resistance values were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s tests (α ≤ 0.05). The modes of failure were visually observed. Results: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) of the fracture resistance values among tested groups was found. The group that showed the highest fracture resistance was Group A for both the titanium and the zirconia abutments (3.029 + 0.248 and 2.59 ± 0.39, respectively) while Group D for both abutments (1.134 + 0.289 and 1.68 ± 0.13) exhibited the least resistance. Conclusions: Fracture resistance and fracture mode varied depending on type of restorative material. For both titanium and zirconia abutments, porcelain fused to metal showed the highest fracture resistance values followed by monolithic zirconia.

Keywords

• dental crown
• dental implant
• implant offset
• lithium disilicate
• porcelain fused to metal
• zirconia