Logotipo do repositório

Influence of ceramic crown design (translucent monolithic zirconia vs. bilayered) of implant-supported single crowns after mechanical cycling

dc.contributor.authorde Oliveira Limirio, Joao Pedro Justino
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Jéssica Marcela de Luna
dc.contributor.authorSantiago-Junior, Joel Ferreira
dc.contributor.authorNagay, Bruna Egumi
dc.contributor.authorPesqueira, Aldiéris Alves
dc.contributor.authorAssunção, Wirley Gonçalves
dc.contributor.authorAlves-Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini
dc.contributor.authorPellizzer, Eduardo Piza
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.institutionUnisagrado
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-29T20:03:39Z
dc.date.issued2024-09-01
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aimed to assess the influence of translucent monolithic versus bilayered crowns and whether the use of a CoCr base abutments affects the fatigue and fracture resistance of screwed implant-supported single crowns with external connections under mechanical cycling. Materials and Methods: Fifty specimens were divided into groups: (1) metal–ceramic (MC) crown, (2) veneered zirconia crown (Zr), (3) veneered zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (ZrB), (4) monolithic translucent zirconia crown (MZr), and (5) monolithic translucent zirconia crown with a CoCr base abutment (MZrB). Specimens underwent mechanical cycling (5 × 106 cycles; 150 N) evaluating fatigue resistance (number of failures) and those that failed were subsequently subjected to fractographic analyses (stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope) to evaluate failure location and area, and maximum fracture load was also measured. Results: The failure-related survival rate (100%) and maximum fracture resistance of the MZrB were significantly higher than those of MC and Zr (50%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the failure rate and fracture resistance when a CoCr base abutment was used or not in the translucent monolithic Zr groups (p > 0.05;MZrB vs. MZr). Failure location, with MC crowns' fractures, noted at the screw area (p = 0.043), while all-ceramic crowns were mostly in the cuspid and to failure area, the Zr group had the largest mean (15.55 ± 9.17 mm2) among the groups, significant difference only when compared with MC (1.62 ± 0.81 mm2) (p = 0.025). Conclusions: Translucent monolithic zirconia crowns exhibited significantly higher fatigue and fracture resistance compared with conventional MC and bilayered crowns. Clinical Significance: The appropriate choice of material and manufacturing technique is crucial for predicting the higher clinical performance of single crowns. Enhanced mechanical resistance in terms of fatigue and fracture resistance can be achieved by replacing MC and bilayered restorations with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing monolithic zirconia.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Dentistry, São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationHealth Sciences Center Unisagrado, São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Prosthodontics and Periodontology Piracicaba Dental School University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Dentistry, São Paulo
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: #2018-13677-2
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: #2018/13086-4
dc.format.extent1326-1336
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13237
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, v. 36, n. 9, p. 1326-1336, 2024.
dc.identifier.dimensionspub.1171112297
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jerd.13237
dc.identifier.issn1708-8240
dc.identifier.issn1496-4155
dc.identifier.lattes3462237552124008
dc.identifier.lattes7216586410059763
dc.identifier.lattes2336450644149867
dc.identifier.lattes4438747643373395
dc.identifier.lattes9184489134524097
dc.identifier.lattes5581364193525500
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1735-2224
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8620-8480
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2621-6200
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3020-5253
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4927-0779
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8903-0737
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-1327-9667
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-0670-5004
dc.identifier.pmid38665052
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85191299559
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/305606
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
dc.sourceScopus
dc.sourceDimensions
dc.subjectCAD–CAM
dc.subjectceramics
dc.subjectdental implants
dc.subjectfatigue resistance
dc.subjectfracture resistance
dc.subjectzirconium
dc.titleInfluence of ceramic crown design (translucent monolithic zirconia vs. bilayered) of implant-supported single crowns after mechanical cyclingen
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationcaced78d-323c-4e6a-8bbb-bdf3185e45ed
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationde5d33f6-e04a-43e8-aab4-499f46683535
relation.isAuthorOfPublication11d66d13-5691-486f-a672-c4048a4e1d0c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication14519126-5cc4-45c6-b0da-4f91db0e9709
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationcee4d3aa-d8ad-4bd7-9a5e-eb0c92238803
relation.isAuthorOfPublication67dd0adb-2c82-4ee0-8834-ce4538248299
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverycaced78d-323c-4e6a-8bbb-bdf3185e45ed
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryde5d33f6-e04a-43e8-aab4-499f46683535
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery11d66d13-5691-486f-a672-c4048a4e1d0c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery14519126-5cc4-45c6-b0da-4f91db0e9709
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverycee4d3aa-d8ad-4bd7-9a5e-eb0c92238803
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery67dd0adb-2c82-4ee0-8834-ce4538248299

Arquivos

Coleções