» Articles » PMID: 38786633

Fracture Resistance of a Bone-Level Two-Piece Zirconia Oral Implant System-The Influence of Artificial Loading and Hydrothermal Aging

Overview
Date 2024 May 24
PMID 38786633
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Preclinical and clinical research on two-piece zirconia implants are warranted. Therefore, we evaluated the in vitro fracture resistance of such a zirconia oral implant system. The present study comprised 32 two-piece zirconia implants and abutments attached to the implants using a titanium ( = 16) or a zirconia abutment screw ( = 16). Both groups were subdivided ( = 8): group T-0 comprised implants with a titanium abutment screw and no artificial loading; group T-HL was the titanium screw group exposed to hydro-thermomechanical loading in a chewing simulator; group Z-0 was the zirconia abutment screw group with no artificial loading; and group Z-HL comprised the zirconia screw group with hydro-thermomechanical loading. Groups T-HL and Z-HL were loaded with 98 N and aged in 85 °C hot water for 10 chewing cycles. All samples were loaded to fracture. Kruskal-Wallis tests were executed to assess the loading/bending moment group differences. The significance level was established at a probability of 0.05. During the artificial loading, there was a single occurrence of an implant fracture. The mean fracture resistances measured in a universal testing machine were 749 N for group T-0, 828 N for group Z-0, 652 N for group T-HL, and 826 N for group Z-HL. The corresponding bending moments were as follows: group T-0, 411 Ncm; group Z-0, 452 Ncm; group T-HL, 356 Ncm; and group Z-HL, 456 Ncm. There were no statistically significant differences found between the experimental groups. Therefore, the conclusion was that loading and aging did not diminish the fracture resistance of the evaluated implant system.

References
1.
Degidi M, Artese L, Franceschini N, Sulpizio S, Piattelli A, Piccirilli M . Matrix metalloproteinases 2, 3, 8, 9, and 13 in the peri-implant soft tissues around titanium and zirconium oxide healing caps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(6):1546-51. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2502. View

2.
Spitznagel F, Balmer M, Wiedemeier D, Jung R, Gierthmuehlen P . Clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 33(1):1-20. PMC: 9297865. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871. View

3.
Cotic J, Kocjan A, Panchevska S, Kosmac T, Jevnikar P . In vivo ageing of zirconia dental ceramics - Part II: Highly-translucent and rapid-sintered 3Y-TZP. Dent Mater. 2020; 37(3):454-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.019. View

4.
Preis V, Kammermeier A, Handel G, Rosentritt M . In vitro performance of two-piece zirconia implant systems for anterior application. Dent Mater. 2016; 32(6):765-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.028. View

5.
Akagawa Y, Hosokawa R, Sato Y, Kamayama K . Comparison between freestanding and tooth-connected partially stabilized zirconia implants after two years' function in monkeys: a clinical and histologic study. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(5):551-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70031-9. View