Int J Prosthodont. 2021 September/October;34(5):615–625. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6700. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
To evaluate the mechanical stability and complication rates of titanium (Ti) or zirconia (Zr) abutments restored with cantilevered fixed dental prostheses (cFDPs) when supported by 1 or 2 implants.
A total of 32 samples were fabricated. Half of the samples received 1 implant, and the other half received 2 implants (Bone Level Implant, Ø 4.1, 13 mm, Straumann) to simulate the clinical situation of 2 or 3 missing maxillary incisors, respectively. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 8). Ti-I and Ti-II groups received Ti abutments (Anatomic Abutment, Straumann) supporting 2- or 3-unit metal cFDPs, respectively, while Zr-I and Zr-II groups received Zr abutments (IPS e.max Anatomic Abutment, Straumann). Following the cementation of cFDPs using resin cement (Multilink Automix, Ivoclar Vivadent), the samples were subjected to thermomechanical fatigue load and were subsequently loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine. Following the static loading test, stereomicroscopic analyses (Carl Zeiss) were done to identify the weakest component of the cFDP, abutment, and implant assembly. Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate the effect of the number of supporting implants and abutment material on fracture strength values, and the level of statistical significance was set at 5% (α = .05).
All specimens survived the aging, and no screw loosening or fracture was recorded. The mean fracture strength values were 226 N (± 26.45 ), 551.12 N (± 82.19 ), 601 N (± 41.51 ), and 664.5 N (± 37.59 ) for Zr-I, Zr-II, Ti-I, and Ti-II, respectively. The difference between fracture strength values of Ti and Zr groups was significant in favor of Ti abutments (P < .001). The number of supporting implants showed a significantly positive effect on the fracture strength of Zr abutments.
Zirconia abutments demonstrated lower fracture strength values than titanium abutments independent from the number of supporting implants when used under cFDPs. Two-implant supported cFDPs with zirconia abutments have the potential to withstand physiologic forces applied in the anterior region.
评估悬臂式固定义齿(cFDP)修复时,1 或 2 个种植体支持的钛(Ti)或氧化锆(Zr)基台的机械稳定性和并发症发生率。
共制作 32 个样本。一半的样本接受 1 个种植体,另一半接受 2 个种植体(Bone Level Implant,Ø 4.1,13mm,Straumann),分别模拟 2 或 3 个上颌切牙缺失的临床情况。每组分为 2 个亚组(n = 8)。Ti-I 和 Ti-II 组分别接受 Ti 基台(Anatomic Abutment,Straumann)支撑 2 或 3 单位金属 cFDP,而 Zr-I 和 Zr-II 组接受 Zr 基台(IPS e.max Anatomic Abutment,Straumann)。cFDP 用树脂水泥(Multilink Automix,Ivoclar Vivadent)黏固后,样品在热机械疲劳负荷下进行测试,然后在万能试验机上加载直至断裂。静态加载试验后,使用 Carl Zeiss 体视显微镜分析(stereomicroscopic analyses)来确定 cFDP、基台和种植体组件中最弱的组件。采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验评估支持种植体数量和基台材料对断裂强度值的影响,统计显著性水平设定为 5%(α =.05)。
所有样本均通过老化试验,未记录到螺丝松动或断裂。Zr-I、Zr-II、Ti-I 和 Ti-II 组的平均断裂强度值分别为 226 N(± 26.45)、551.12 N(± 82.19)、601 N(± 41.51)和 664.5 N(± 37.59)。Ti 和 Zr 组之间的断裂强度值差异有统计学意义(P <.001),且有利于 Ti 基台。种植体数量对 Zr 基台的断裂强度有显著的正向影响。
在悬臂式固定义齿修复中,Zr 基台的断裂强度值低于 Ti 基台,与支持种植体的数量无关。在前牙区应用时,2 个种植体支持的 cFDP 用 Zr 基台具有承受生理力的潜力。