Int J Comput Dent. 2023 Sep 26;26(3):237-245. doi: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b3781703.
To evaluate the fracture load and type of failure of two different monolithic restorative materials bonded to standardized titanium bases and fabricated by two different procedures regarding the bonding interface.
All screw-retained implant crown specimens (n = 40), subjected to fatigue by thermomechanical loading, differed in the restorative material (lithium disilicate [LDS] or polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN], referred to as 'hybrid ceramic' [HYC]) and the interface type between the restorative material and the titanium base abutment (prefabricated ex-factory or produced during a CAM-milling procedure). This resulted in the following groups (n = 10/group): 1) LDS-M: lithium disilicate crown with a CAM-milled interface; 2) LDS-P: lithium disilicate crown with a prefabricated interface; 3) HYC-M: PICN crown with a CAM-milled interface; and 4) HYC-P: PICN crown with a prefabricated interface. Aged specimens underwent static fracture load testing. The load (N) at which the initial crack occurred was denoted as Finitial, and the maximal load (N) at which the restorations fractured as Fmax. All specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the failure mode.
The median Finitial values were 180 N for LDS-M, 343 N for LDS-P, 340 N for HYC-M, and 190 N for HYC-P. The median Fmax values were 1822 N for LDS-M, 2039 N for LDS-P, 1454 N for HYC-M, and 1581 N for HYC-P. The intergroup differences were significant for Finitial (KW: P = 0.0042) and for Fmax (KW: P = 0.0010). The failure types also showed differences between the restorative groups.
The choice of restorative material had a stronger influence on the fracture load than the abutment interface workflow. Lithium disilicate showed the highest load for initial crack appearance (Finitial) and for complete fracture of the restoration (Fmax).
评估两种不同的整体修复材料在标准化钛基底上的结合界面，并通过两种不同的程序进行粘合，以评估其断裂负荷和失效类型。
所有螺钉固位种植体冠试件（n=40），经热机械加载疲劳试验，在修复材料（锂硅二酸盐[LDS]或聚合物渗透陶瓷网络[PICN]，称为“混合陶瓷”[HYC]）和修复材料与钛基底接台之间的界面类型方面存在差异（预制出厂或CAM 铣削过程中制造）。这导致以下组（n=10/组）：1）LDS-M：具有 CAM 铣削界面的锂硅二酸盐冠；2）LDS-P：具有预制界面的锂硅二酸盐冠；3）HYC-M：具有 CAM 铣削界面的 PICN 冠；和 4）HYC-P：具有预制界面的 PICN 冠。老化试件进行静态断裂负荷测试。初始裂纹发生时的载荷（N）表示为 Finitial，修复体断裂时的最大载荷（N）表示为 Fmax。所有标本均在立体显微镜下检查，以确定失效模式。
LDS-M 的中位数 Finitial 值为 180N，LDS-P 的中位数 Finitial 值为 343N，HYC-M 的中位数 Finitial 值为 340N，HYC-P 的中位数 Finitial 值为 190N。LDS-M 的中位数 Fmax 值为 1822N，LDS-P 的中位数 Fmax 值为 2039N，HYC-M 的中位数 Fmax 值为 1454N，HYC-P 的中位数 Fmax 值为 1581N。Finitial（KW：P=0.0042）和 Fmax（KW：P=0.0010）的组间差异具有统计学意义。修复组之间的失效类型也存在差异。
修复材料的选择对断裂负荷的影响大于接台界面工作流程。锂硅二酸盐显示出出现初始裂纹（Finitial）和修复体完全断裂（Fmax）的最高载荷。
