Rosentritt Martin, Hagemann Anna, Hahnel Sebastian, Behr Michael, Preis Verena
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042 Regensburg, Germany.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Regensburg, 93042 Regensburg, Germany.
J Dent. 2014 Aug;42(8):1019-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.010. Epub 2014 Mar 31.
To investigate the type of failure and fracture resistance behaviour of different zirconia and titanium implant/abutment systems for anterior application.
Eight groups of implant-abutment combinations (n=8/system) were restored with identical full-contour zirconia crowns. The systems represented one-piece and multi-piece zirconia (Z) or titanium (T) implants/abutments with different types of connection (screwed=S, bonded=B). The following combinations (implant-abutment-connection) were investigated: ZZS, ZZB, ZZZB (three-piece), ZTS, TTS, TTS reference, and Z (one-piece, 2×). To simulate clinical anterior loading situations the specimens were mounted into the chewing simulator at an angle of 135° and subjected to thermal cycling (2×3000×5°/55°C) and mechanical loading (1.2×10(6)×50N; 1.6Hz). Fracture resistance and maximum bending stress were determined for all specimens that survived ageing. Data were statistically analyzed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test and one-way ANOVA (α=0.05). Survival performance was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier Log-Rank test.
Independent of the material combinations screwed systems showed partly failures of the screws during simulation (ZZS: 3×, ZTS: 8×, TTS: 3×). Screw failures were combined with implant/abutment fractures of zirconia systems. Zirconia one-piece implants and the reference system did not show any failures, and only one specimen of the systems with a bonded connection (ZZZB) fractured. Mean (±standard deviation) fracture forces and maximum bending stresses differed significantly (p=0.000) between 187.4±42.0N/250.0±56.0N/mm(2) (ZZZB) and 524.3±43.1N/753.0±61.0N/mm(2) (Z).
Both material (zirconia or titanium) and the type of connection influenced failure resistance during fatigue testing, fracture force, and maximum bending stress.
Different material combinations for implants and abutments as well as different types of connection achieved acceptable or even good failure and fracture resistance that may be satisfactory for anterior clinical application.
研究不同氧化锆和钛种植体/基台系统在前牙应用中的失败类型和抗断裂行为。
八组种植体-基台组合（每组系统n = 8）用相同的全轮廓氧化锆冠进行修复。这些系统代表了不同连接类型（螺丝固定=S，粘结固定=B）的一体式和多件式氧化锆（Z）或钛（T）种植体/基台。研究了以下组合（种植体-基台-连接方式）：ZZS、ZZB、ZZZB（三件式）、ZTS、TTS、TTS参照组以及Z（一体式，2个）。为模拟临床前牙加载情况，将标本以135°角安装在咀嚼模拟器中，并进行热循环（2×3000次×5°/55°C）和机械加载（1.2×10⁶次×50N；1.6Hz）。对所有经过老化后存活的标本测定抗断裂性和最大弯曲应力。数据采用柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验和单因素方差分析进行统计学分析（α = 0.05）。用Kaplan-Meier对数秩检验计算存活性能。
与材料组合无关，螺丝固定系统在模拟过程中部分螺丝出现失败（ZZS：3次，ZTS：8次，TTS：3次）。螺丝失败与氧化锆系统的种植体/基台骨折相关。氧化锆一体式种植体和参照系统未出现任何失败，粘结连接系统（ZZZB）仅1个标本发生骨折。平均（±标准差）断裂力和最大弯曲应力在187.4±42.0N/250.0±56.0N/mm²（ZZZB）和524.3±43.1N/753.0±61.0N/mm²（Z）之间有显著差异（p = 0.000）。
材料（氧化锆或钛）和连接类型均影响疲劳测试期间的抗失败性、断裂力和最大弯曲应力。
种植体和基台的不同材料组合以及不同连接类型实现了可接受甚至良好的抗失败性和抗断裂性，这对于前牙临床应用可能是令人满意的。
