Abstract
Purpose:
To evaluate the bending moments and failure modes of zirconia meso-abutments bonded to titanium bases restored with different monolithic all-ceramic crowns after aging, and to compare them to titanium abutments restored with all-ceramic crowns.
Material and methods:
Forty-eight internal conical connection implants (Conelog, Camlog 4.3 mm diameter) were restored with four different computer-aided design/computed-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutment-crown combinations (n = 12). Thirty-six customized zirconia meso-abutments were bonded to titanium bases (Conelog Titanium Base CAD/CAM crown, Camlog) and divided into three groups according to the different crown materials: (T1) monolithic lithium-disilicate (e-max CAD, Ivoclar), (T2) monolithic PICN (polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [Enamic, Vita]), and (T3) monolithic zirconia (Lava Plus, 3M ESPE). Twelve titanium customized abutments restored with monolithic lithium-disilicate (e-max CAD, Ivoclar) crowns served as the control group (C). The crowns were equal maxillary central incisors and were adhesively bonded with a resin-based cement (Panavia 21, Kuraray). All samples were embedded in acrylic holders. After aging (1,200,000 cycles, 49 N, 1.67 Hz, 5°C to 50°C, 120 seconds), static load was applied until failure. Bending moments were calculated for comparison of the groups. Data were statistically treated with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey post hoc test (P < .05). Failure modes were analyzed descriptively.
Results:
The means of the bending moments were 356.4 ± 20.8 Ncm (T1), 357.7 ± 26.3 Ncm (T2), 385.5 ± 21.2 Ncm (T3), and 358.8 ± 25.3 Ncm (C). Group T3 revealed significantly higher mean bending moments than the other groups (P < .05). No differences were found between zirconia meso-abutments supported by titanium bases and customized titanium abutments when lithium-disilicate crowns were used (P > .05). No failures were identified during and after aging. After static load, failures occurred due to fracture of the abutment in the internal connection in all the groups.
Conclusion:
Zirconia meso-abutments bonded to titanium bases showed similar mechanical stability compared with customized titanium abutments. Regarding the crown material, all three tested ceramics (lithium-disilicate, PICN, and zirconia) revealed very good stability when used in the monolithic state.
