Freitas Mariana Itaborai Moreira, Ruggiero Mirelle Maria, Marcello-Machado Raissa Micaella, Vargas-Moreno Vanessa Felipe, Reis Andréa Cândido Dos, Cury Altair Antoninha Del Bel
Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas(UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
School of Dentistry, Paulista University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2025 Jul 11;36:e236140. doi: 10.1590/0103-644020256140. eCollection 2025.
Using Titanium bases (TBs) has shown excellent results in implant-supported rehabilitation. However, failures due to decementation can occur, and bonding success depends on the TB surface treatment. This study evaluated the effect of different TB surface treatments on the retention and failure mode of resin matrix ceramic (RMC) crowns after thermocycling and the stress distribution of RMC cemented on the TBs. 120 TBs were divided into eight groups (n = 15) according to the material (resin nanoceramic (RNC) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN)) and the surface treatment of the TBs: no treatment (NT); Airborne-particle abrasion with 50μm aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (AL); Airborne-particle abrasion with 30μm silica-modified Al2O3 particles (SIAL30) and Airborne-particle abrasion with 110μm silica-modified Al2O3 particles (SIAL110). After thermocycling, retention, and failure modes were analyzed. Retention data underwent two-way ANOVA and Tukey Post Hoc test (α=0.05). Finite element analysis (FEA) assessed stress distribution according to maximum principal stress (σmax) on the crown and maximum shear stress (τmax) on the cement layer. No significant difference was observed among the surface treatments or their interaction with the material (p > 0.05). However, RNC presented higher retention force values for all surface treatments (p<0.001). FEA showed a higher σmax for PICN (317.31 MPa) than RNC (277.69 MPa), while τmax was higher for RNC (246.54MPa) compared to PICN (213.55MPa). Most failures were cohesive in the material. In conclusion, surface treatments did not influence the retention of crowns to TBs, with the RNC having higher retention and better stress distribution for the crown.
使用钛基台（TBs）在种植体支持的修复中已显示出优异的效果。然而，可能会发生因粘结失败导致的修复体松动，并且粘结成功与否取决于钛基台的表面处理。本研究评估了不同钛基台表面处理对热循环后树脂基陶瓷（RMC）全冠的固位力和失败模式以及粘结在钛基台上的RMC的应力分布的影响。120个钛基台根据材料（树脂纳米陶瓷（RNC）和聚合物渗透陶瓷网络（PICN））以及钛基台的表面处理分为八组（n = 15）：未处理（NT）；用50μm氧化铝（Al2O3）进行空气颗粒喷砂（AL）；用30μm二氧化硅改性的Al2O3颗粒进行空气颗粒喷砂（SIAL30）和用110μm二氧化硅改性的Al2O3颗粒进行空气颗粒喷砂（SIAL110）。热循环后，分析固位力和失败模式。固位力数据进行双向方差分析和Tukey事后检验（α = 0.05）。有限元分析（FEA）根据全冠上的最大主应力（σmax）和粘结层上的最大剪应力（τmax）评估应力分布。在表面处理及其与材料的相互作用之间未观察到显著差异（p > 0.05）。然而，对于所有表面处理，RNC的固位力值更高（p < 0.001）。FEA显示PICN的σmax（317.31 MPa）高于RNC（277.69 MPa），而RNC的τmax（246.54MPa）高于PICN（213.55MPa）。大多数失败发生在材料内部的粘结破坏。总之，表面处理不影响全冠与钛基台的固位，RNC具有更高的固位力和更好的全冠应力分布。
