The Don & Sybil Harrington Foundation Chair of Esthetic Dentistry, Division of Restorative Sciences, The Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-7792, USA.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Nov;22(11):1275-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02103.x. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
This study assessed the fatigue resistance and failure mode of type III porcelain and composite resin veneers bonded to custom composite resin implant abutments.
Using the CEREC 3 machine, 28 composite resin implant abutments (Paradigm MZ100) were fabricated along with non-retentive type III veneers, milled either in ceramic Paradigm C (n=14) or in composite resin Paradigm MZ100 (n=14). The intaglio surfaces of the veneers were hydrofluoric acid etched and silanated (Paradigm C) or airborne-particle abraded and silanated (MZ100). The fitting surface of the abutments was airborne-particle abraded, cleaned, silanated and inserted into a bone level implant (10 mm, BLI RC). All veneers were luted with adhesive resin (Optibond FL) and a preheated light curing composite resin (Filtek Z100). Cyclic isometric chewing (5 Hz, 30° angle) was simulated, starting with a load of 40 N, followed by stages of 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 and 280 N (20,000 cycles each). Samples were loaded until fracture or to a maximum of 140,000 cycles. Groups were compared using the life table survival analysis (Log rank test at P=0.05). Previously published data using same-design zirconia abutments were included for comparison.
Paradigm C and MZ100 specimens fractured at an average load of 243 and 206 N (survival rate of 21% and 0%), respectively, with a significant difference in survival probability (P=0.02). Fractured specimens presented mixed failure modes and solely adhesive failures were not observed. The survival of composite resin abutments was similar to that of identical zirconia abutments from a previous study (P=0.76).
Non-retentive porcelain veneers bonded to custom composite resin implant abutments presented a higher survival rate when compared with composite resin veneers. Survival of composite resin abutment did not differ from zirconia ones.
本研究评估了粘结于定制复合树脂种植体基台的 III 型瓷贴面和复合树脂贴面的耐疲劳性和失效模式。
使用 CEREC 3 机，制作了 28 个复合树脂种植体基台（Paradigm MZ100），同时制作了非固位型 III 型贴面，分别在陶瓷 Paradigm C（n=14）或复合树脂 Paradigm MZ100（n=14）上铣削。贴面的凹面用氢氟酸蚀刻并用硅烷化处理（Paradigm C）或用空气颗粒喷砂并用硅烷化处理（MZ100）。基台的贴合面用空气颗粒喷砂处理、清洁、硅烷化处理后插入骨水平种植体（10 mm，BLI RC）。所有贴面均用粘结树脂（Optibond FL）和预热光固化复合树脂（Filtek Z100）粘结。用 5 Hz、30°角模拟等距咀嚼循环，起始负荷为 40 N，然后分别为 80、120、160、200、240 和 280 N（每个循环 20,000 次）。在样品断裂或达到 140,000 次循环之前，持续加载。使用寿命表生存分析（P=0.05 时对数秩检验）比较各组。为了比较，纳入了使用相同设计氧化锆基台的先前发表的数据。
Paradigm C 和 MZ100 标本的平均负荷分别为 243 N 和 206 N（存活率为 21%和 0%），生存概率有显著差异（P=0.02）。断裂标本表现出混合失效模式，未观察到单纯的粘结失效。复合树脂基台的生存情况与先前研究中相同设计氧化锆基台相似（P=0.76）。
粘结于定制复合树脂种植体基台的非固位型瓷贴面的存活率高于复合树脂贴面。复合树脂基台的存活率与氧化锆基台无差异。
