Fracture Resistance of Titanium, Zirconia, and Ceramic-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Implant Abutments Supporting CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns After Aging

dc.contributor.authorAtsu, Saadet Saglam
dc.contributor.authorAksan, M. Emin
dc.contributor.authorBulut, Ali Can
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-25T18:34:05Z
dc.date.available2020-06-25T18:34:05Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentKırıkkale Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistances and the fracture types of titanium, zirconia, and ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant abutments supporting computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic crowns after in vitro dynamic loading and thermocycling aging. Materials and Methods: Three implant abutment (SKY Implant) groups-titanium (group Ti, control); zirconia with titanium base (group Zr); and ceramic-reinforced PEEK (BioHPP) with titanium base (group RPEEK); n = 12 each-were used. Thirty-six CAD/CAM monolithic lithium disilicate crowns (IPS e. max CAD) in the form of a maxillary central incisor were cemented with Panavia V5 on the abutments. The specimens were subjected to dynamic loading and thermocycling. Fracture resistances of the restorations were tested with a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min), and their fracture patterns were analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test were used for statistical analyses (alpha = .05). Results: All samples survived after aging. The fracture strength values (mean +/- standard deviation) of the groups were as follows: group Ti, 787.8 +/- 120.9 N; group Zr, 623.9 +/- 97.4 N; and group RPEEK, 602.9 +/- 121 N. The fracture strengths were significantly higher in group Ti compared to groups Zr and RPEEK (P =.001). No significant difference was observed between groups Zr and RPEEK. Failures generally occurred due to fracture of the screw in group Ti, abutment and crown in group Zr, and crown in group RPEEK. Conclusion: Ceramic-reinforced PEEK abutments may be an alternative to zirconia abutments with a titanium base for single-implant restorations in the anterior region. However, there is need for further in vitro and clinical studies to evaluate the long-term performance of ceramic-reinforced PEEK abutments.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipKirikkale University Scientific Research ProjectKirikkale University [2015/122]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Kirikkale University Scientific Research Project (2015/122). The authors reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.en_US
dc.identifier.citationclosedAccessen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.11607/jomi.7036
dc.identifier.endpage630en_US
dc.identifier.issn0882-2786
dc.identifier.issn1942-4434
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid30716141
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85066448223
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage622en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7036
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/7788
dc.identifier.volume34en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000474689000010
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal Of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketoneen_US
dc.subjectchewing simulatoren_US
dc.subjectdental implant abutmentsen_US
dc.subjectfracture resistanceen_US
dc.subjectlithium disilicate crownsen_US
dc.subjecttitaniumen_US
dc.subjectzirconiaen_US
dc.titleFracture Resistance of Titanium, Zirconia, and Ceramic-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Implant Abutments Supporting CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns After Agingen_US
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar