We have located links that may give you full text access.
Load-Bearing Capacity of Posterior CAD/CAM Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures Fabricated with Different Esthetic Materials.
International Journal of Prosthodontics 2019 March
PURPOSE: To compare the load-bearing capacity after long-term use (5-year simulation) of posterior three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated with different esthetic materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 specimens fabricated from one design file using CAD/CAM were divided into four groups: polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) veneered with composite resin (CR); PEKK veneered with lithium disilicate (LD); zirconia veneered with fluorapatite (FA); and monolithic zirconia. Samples were placed into a chewing simulator with simultaneous thermocycling. The fracture load after aging was measured using the universal testing machine with load on the central fossa of the pontic.
RESULTS: FPDs fabricated with PEKK + LD had significantly higher fracture load (1,526.56 [SD 95.54] N) compared to PEKK + CR (1,069.54 [SD 67.94] N) (P < .05). FPDs fabricated with zirconia materials had significantly higher fracture load compared to PEKK materials (P < .05). There was no significant difference between monolithic zirconia and zirconia + FA (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: FPDs fabricated with PEKK + LD were superior to PEKK + CR. These materials can be promising alternatives for use as implant-supported FPD materials in the high-stress-bearing posterior region. Zirconia + FA can be an alternative to monolithic zirconia in cases that require more esthetics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 specimens fabricated from one design file using CAD/CAM were divided into four groups: polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) veneered with composite resin (CR); PEKK veneered with lithium disilicate (LD); zirconia veneered with fluorapatite (FA); and monolithic zirconia. Samples were placed into a chewing simulator with simultaneous thermocycling. The fracture load after aging was measured using the universal testing machine with load on the central fossa of the pontic.
RESULTS: FPDs fabricated with PEKK + LD had significantly higher fracture load (1,526.56 [SD 95.54] N) compared to PEKK + CR (1,069.54 [SD 67.94] N) (P < .05). FPDs fabricated with zirconia materials had significantly higher fracture load compared to PEKK materials (P < .05). There was no significant difference between monolithic zirconia and zirconia + FA (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: FPDs fabricated with PEKK + LD were superior to PEKK + CR. These materials can be promising alternatives for use as implant-supported FPD materials in the high-stress-bearing posterior region. Zirconia + FA can be an alternative to monolithic zirconia in cases that require more esthetics.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app