We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry  (English Edition)
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Esthet Dent 12 (2017), No. 3     4. Aug. 2017
Int J Esthet Dent 12 (2017), No. 3  (04.08.2017)

Page 336-351, PubMed:28717792


Accelerated fatigue resistance of novel-design histoanatomic implant restorations made of CAD/CAM bilaminar assemblies
Molina, Ivan / Goldberg, Jack / Volpato, Claudia Maziero / Magne, Pascal
Objectives: Evaluate the fatigue resistance and failure mode of novel-design implant restorations made of histoanatomic computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) bilaminar bonded assemblies.
Material and methods: 60 screw-retained implant restorations were fabricated. Monolithic restorations were used as a control group (15 lithium disilicate: group CE; and 15 nanofilled composite resin: group CL), and compared with bilaminar restorations (15 dentin-shaped lithium disilicate mesostructures with a bonded nanofilled composite resin veneer: group CEL; and 15 dentin-shaped nanofilled composite resin mesostructures with a bonded lithium disilicate veneer: group CLE). All monolithic and bilaminar restorations were assembled and bonded to a customized metal implant abutment. Cyclic isometric chewing (5 Hz) at a 30-degree angle was simulated, starting with 5,000 cycles at a load of 150 N, followed by 20,000 cycles with increments of 50 N. Samples were loaded until fracture or to a maximum of 160,000 cycles. The groups were compared using the Life Table survival analysis (logrank test at P = 0.05; post hoc tests at P = 0.008).
Results: In the CL group, restorations failed at an average load of 347.39 N (98.361 cycles), and in the CLE group at an average load of 313.20 N (83.105 cycles), and none of the specimens withstood all 160,000 load cycles. In the CE group, restorations failed at an average load of 381.47 N (119.115 cycles), and in the CEL group at an average load of 415.20 N (132.873 cycles), with survival rates of 26% and 33%, respectively. Post hoc tests from the load step data showed higher fatigue resistance of CEL compared with CLE (P = 0.003).
Conclusion: Lithium disilicate monolithic restorations and mesostructures with nanofilled composite resin veneer presented higher survival rates when compared with nanofilled composite resin restorations.