Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 31, Issue 12, December 2015, Pages e279-e288
Dental Materials

Loading capacity of zirconia implant supported hybrid ceramic crowns

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.012Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A novel hybrid ceramic showed a higher loading capacity than feldspar ceramic cemented on one-piece zirconia implants.

  • The compressive strength of dental resin composite cements correlates with the fracture load of hybrid and feldspar crowns.

  • Etching of the intaglio surface of hybrid and feldspar ceramic crowns does not increase the fracture load of the restoration.

Abstract

Objective

Recently a polymer infiltrated hybrid ceramic was developed, which is characterized by a low elastic modulus and therefore may be considered as potential material for implant supported single crowns. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the loading capacity of hybrid ceramic single crowns on one-piece zirconia implants with respect to the cement type.

Methods

Fracture load tests were performed on standardized molar crowns milled from hybrid ceramic or feldspar ceramic, cemented to zirconia implants with either machined or etched intaglio surface using four different resin composite cements. Flexure strength, elastic modulus, indirect tensile strength and compressive strength of the cements were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA (p = 0.05).

Results

The hybrid ceramic exhibited statistically significant higher fracture load values than the feldspar ceramic. Fracture load values and compressive strength values of the respective cements were correlated. Highest fracture load values were achieved with an adhesive cement (1253 ± 148 N). Etching of the intaglio surface did not improve the fracture load.

Significance

Loading capacity of hybrid ceramic single crowns on one-piece zirconia implants is superior to that of feldspar ceramic. To achieve maximal loading capacity for permanent cementation of full-ceramic restorations on zirconia implants, self-adhesive or adhesive cements with a high compressive strength should be used.

Introduction

As an alternative to the well-established dental implants made from titanium, zirconium dioxide has been introduced. Zirconia is an inert, non-resorbable and biocompatible metal oxide, which facilitates osseointegration in the form of 3–5 mol% yttria stabilized polycrystalline tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP) [1], [2]. Esthetic considerations or potential allergies indicate the use of zirconium dioxide instead of titanium, and clinical short-term success rates are promising [3], [4], [5]. However, due to the lack of long-term data the use of zirconia implants in routine clinical practice is not yet recommended [3].

Implant and suprastructure consist of different materials functioning together as a complex system in withstanding strong intraoral bite forces. Maximum biting forces are reported to be in the range of 286–847 N in the anterior and molar region, respectively [6], [7]. Due to its excellent characteristics such as esthetical properties, chemical stability, biocompatibility, and a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to the natural tooth [8] ceramic might be the material of choice for implant restorations. Unfortunately, under tensile stress ceramic is susceptible to fracture as a result of its brittleness, surface and bulk defects and crack propagation under oral function [9].

In order to improve the reliability of ceramics a novel polymer infiltrated ceramic was developed [10], [11], [12]. For this material a fracture toughness of 1.21 MPa m1/2 [12] is reported, which is higher than the one of a typical dental feldspar ceramic (0.92–1.12 MPa m1/2) [13]. In parallel the hybrid ceramic showed a three times lower hardness value (2.92 ± 1.92 GPa) compared to the feldspar ceramic (10.64 ± 0.46 GPa) [14], [15]. In a three point bending test a flexure strength of 144.44 ± 9.61 MPa was measured [12]. Due to its low modulus of elasticity of 31.72 ± 1.43 GPa [12] the hybrid material may work as a buffer area to counterbalance the stiffness of zirconia implants, which is owed to the high elastic modulus of zirconia in the range of 200 GPa [16] and the ankylotic connection to the bone as a result of osseointegration.

When investigating the performance of hybrid ceramic restorations the influence of the cement as an intermediate layer has to be considered. The impact of the cement type on fracture load values of tooth supported restorations has been analyzed in several investigations [17], [18], [19]. The use of a conventional zinc phosphate cement resulted in lower fracture load values for feldspar and resin composite crowns than a cementation with adhesive cement [18]. Glass-infiltrated alumina as well as lithium disilicate and leucite reinforced ceramic crowns luted with a resin composite cement showed higher fracture load values than those luted with a resin modified glass ionomer cement [19]. On a steel analogue of a prepared upper canine, fracture load values of zirconia, lithium disilicate or ceramic fused to metal crowns were not influenced by the type of cement [20]. This was explained by the fact that the intrinsic strength of these materials was so high that cementing with an adhesive cement could not contribute to the fracture strength. In contrast the fracture load of leucite reinforced glass-ceramic crowns significantly increased by the use of adhesive cement when being compared to glass ionomer cement [20].

The test design has a strong impact on fracture load test results. For instance feldspar ceramic as one of the weaker materials among ceramic systems has been tested with fracture load values of 300–1279 N while using different fracture load test designs [18], [21], [22]. Fracture load values of 833.4 ± 147.5 N [22] and 1272 ± 109 N [21], respectively were found in two different studies where machined feldspar ceramic crowns were cemented with an adhesive resin composite cement on human teeth or epoxy duplicates of a prepared tooth. These observations indicate that test results cannot easily be matched and a control group is essential in every investigation.

The objective of this study was to compare the fracture load values of a new hybrid ceramic material with a feldspar ceramic on zirconia implants while using different luting cements and to detect any correlation between the fracture load values of the ceramics and mechanical properties of the cements. The hypotheses are that (1) the fracture load values of hybrid ceramic crowns are higher than those of feldspar ceramic crowns and (2) fracture load values of feldspar and hybrid ceramic crowns are influenced by mechanical properties of the cement.

Section snippets

Implant preparation

Ten one-piece zirconia implants (ceramic implant, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) with a diameter of 4.0 mm, a length of 10 mm in the endosseous part and a machined abutment surface (Ra = 0.42 ± 0.06 μm) were used for this study. All implants were embedded according to ISO 14801:2008 in epoxy (RenCast CW 20/Ren HY 49, Huntsman Advanced Materials, Duxford, UK) in order to simulate the elasticity of human bone. The implants were inserted with a 3 mm clearance between implant neck and resin

Fracture load

All crowns fractured during the test under a load ranging from 249 to 1239 N, forming 2–5 fragments. No damage was detected at the implant or the epoxy resin block. The hybrid material (VE) exhibited significantly higher fracture loads than the feldspar ceramic (VM) for the respective cement (p = 0.037). The highest values were achieved with VE machined and MLA (1253 ± 148 N) and the lowest values for VM etched without cement (249 ± 58 N) (Fig. 6 and Table 3). In no group etching improved the fracture

Discussion

The present study was designed to show how the new hybrid ceramic material performs within an implant system and in what way cements influence the fracture load of crowns. The first hypothesis that the fracture load values of hybrid ceramic crowns are higher than those of feldspar ceramic crowns was confirmed. A correlation between mechanical properties of the cements and fracture load of the crowns was only found for the compressive strength. Hence, the compressive strength of the cement has

Conclusions

In the present test design hybrid ceramic provides higher loading capacity than feldspar ceramic. The fracture load of hybrid ceramic and feldspar ceramic crowns is correlated to the compressive strength of the cement. In the test design used, etching of the intaglio surface of hybrid or feldspar ceramic crowns had no effect on the fracture load of the restoration.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to VITA Zahnfabrik for supporting this study with materials and to Fredy Schmidli (University Hospital for Dental Medicine) for the lab support. The statistical analysis was kindly performed by Marek Mrzyk, VITA Zahnfabrik.

References (33)

Cited by (29)

  • Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

    2019, Journal of Prosthodontic Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    The cement VAF that was applied for VE revealed a significantly higher compressive strength than RUL that was used for CT. For VE it is known that a high compressive strength of the resin composite cement can improve the fracture load values [10,17]. Thus, the higher compressive strength of VAF might have compensated the decrease in flexural strength of VE.

  • Biofilm formation on restorative materials and resin composite cements

    2018, Dental Materials
    Citation Excerpt :

    Hence, to prevent chipping, restorative materials should be applied in the monolithic state. In vitro results indicate specific monolithic restoration and cement materials for the prosthetic treatment of zirconia implants [13,14]. For silica and polymer-infiltrated ceramics, cements with a high compressive strength such as adhesive resin cements are recommended to increase the loading capacity of the system.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text