OBJECTIVES: The present in vitro study aimed at evaluating the fracture resistance of both implant-supported screw- and cement-retained porcelain fused to metal (PFM) single crowns. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation of the mode of failure of the specimens was also performed. METHODS: Forty PFM premolar-shaped identical single crowns were realized. The restorations were divided into two groups: cement-retained (group 1) and screw-retained (group 2) prostheses. Compressive loading tests and SEM fractographic analyses were performed. The data were statistically analysed by means of the Student's t-test, with a confidence interval of 95%. RESULTS: The mean fracture load value was 1657 (+/-725) N in group 1 and 1281 (+/-747) N in group 2; the statistical analysis pointed out no significant differences between the two groups (p=0.115). The mean work at maximum load value was 0.775 (+/-0.619) J in group 1 and 0.605 (+/-0.526) J in group 2; the statistical analysis pointed out no significant differences between the two groups (p=0.355). All the samples were affected by cohesive fractures of the porcelain. Screw-retained crowns showed microcracks at the level of the occlusal access to the screw and extensive fractures in the whole thickness of the ceramics. On the contrary, cement-retained restorations were affected by less wide paramarginal fractures of the porcelain. SIGNIFICANCE: A stronger implant-prosthetic connection was noticed in cemented restorations group than in screw-retained single crowns. Even though negatively influenced by the presence of the occlusal access to the screw, the metal-ceramics bond can be considered predictable in both the implant-prosthetic connection systems analysed.

Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw- versus cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis

TRAINI, TONINO;DI IORIO, DONATO;CAPUTI, Sergio
2007-01-01

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The present in vitro study aimed at evaluating the fracture resistance of both implant-supported screw- and cement-retained porcelain fused to metal (PFM) single crowns. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation of the mode of failure of the specimens was also performed. METHODS: Forty PFM premolar-shaped identical single crowns were realized. The restorations were divided into two groups: cement-retained (group 1) and screw-retained (group 2) prostheses. Compressive loading tests and SEM fractographic analyses were performed. The data were statistically analysed by means of the Student's t-test, with a confidence interval of 95%. RESULTS: The mean fracture load value was 1657 (+/-725) N in group 1 and 1281 (+/-747) N in group 2; the statistical analysis pointed out no significant differences between the two groups (p=0.115). The mean work at maximum load value was 0.775 (+/-0.619) J in group 1 and 0.605 (+/-0.526) J in group 2; the statistical analysis pointed out no significant differences between the two groups (p=0.355). All the samples were affected by cohesive fractures of the porcelain. Screw-retained crowns showed microcracks at the level of the occlusal access to the screw and extensive fractures in the whole thickness of the ceramics. On the contrary, cement-retained restorations were affected by less wide paramarginal fractures of the porcelain. SIGNIFICANCE: A stronger implant-prosthetic connection was noticed in cemented restorations group than in screw-retained single crowns. Even though negatively influenced by the presence of the occlusal access to the screw, the metal-ceramics bond can be considered predictable in both the implant-prosthetic connection systems analysed.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/137386
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 92
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 86
social impact