Load bearing capacity of 3-unit screw-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with a mesial and distal cantilever on a single implant: A comparative in vitro study
Pedro Molinero-Mourelle,Samir Abou-Ayash,Urs Brägger,Martin Schimmel,Mutlu Özcan,Burak Yilmaz,Ramona Buser,Nadin Al-Haj Husain
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106395
IF: 4.042
2024-01-21
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Abstract:Objectives To assess the mechanical durability of monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDP) design on one implant, with a distal and a mesial extension cantilever bonded to a titanium base compared to established designs on two implants. Materials and methods Roxolid Tissue level (TL), and tissue level x (TLX) implants were used to manufacture screw-retained 3-unit iFDPs (n = 60, n = 10 per group), with following configurations (X: Cantilever; I: Implant, T: Test group, C: Control group): T1: X-I-X (TL); T2: X-I-X (TLX); T3: I–I-X (TL); T4: I–I-X (TLX); C1: I-X-I (TL); C2: I-X-I (TLX). The iFDPs were thermomechanically aged and subsequently loaded until fracture using a universal testing machine. The failure load at first crack (F initial ) and at catastrophic fracture (F max ) were measured and statistical evaluation was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests. Results The mean values ranged between 190 ± 73 and 510 ± 459 N for F initial groups, and between 468 ± 76 and 1579 ± 249 N for F max , respectively. Regarding F initial , neither the implant type, nor the iFDP configuration significantly influenced measured failure loads (all p > 0.05). The choice of implant type did not show any significant effect ( p > 0.05), while reconstruction design significantly affected F max data (I–I-X a < X-I-X b < I-X-I c ) (p < 0.05). The mesial and distal extension groups (X-I-X) showed fractures only at the cantilever extension site, while the distal extension group (I–I-X) showed one abutment and one connector fracture at the implant/reconstruction interface. Conclusion Results suggest that iFDPs with I-X-I design can be recommended regardless of tested implant type followed by the mesial and distal extension design on one implant abutment (X-I-X).
engineering, biomedical,materials science, biomaterials