Abstract
Adjusting implant abutment for crown delivery is a common practice during implant installation. The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture resistance and stress distribution of zirconia specimens on four occlusal surface areas of implant abutment. Four implant abutment designs [occlusal surface area (SA) SA100, SA75, SA50, and SA25] with 15 zirconia prostheses over the molar area per group were prepared for cyclic loading with 5 Hz, 300 N in a servo-hydraulic testing machine until fracture or automatic stoppage after 30,000 counts. The minimum occlusal thickness of all specimens was 0.5 mm. Four finite element models were simulated under vertical or oblique 10-degree loading to analyze the stress distribution and peak value of zirconia specimens. Data were statistically analyzed, and fracture patterns were observed under a scanning electron microscope. Cyclic loading tests revealed that specimen breakage had moderately strong correlation with the abutment occlusal area (r = 0.475). Specimen breakage differed significantly among the four groups (P = 0.001). The lowest von Mises stress value was measured for prosthesis with a smallest abutment occlusal surface area (SA25) and the thickest zirconia crown. Thicker zirconia specimens (SA25) had higher fracture resistance and lowest stress values under 300 N loading.
Highlights
Implant-supported fixed partial dental prosthesis is a popular treatment option for partially edentulous patients
The results showed that the peak EQV of SA25 had the lowest value compared to the other three types
Lan et al [22] found that the fracture resistance of zirconia specimens have positive correlation with prosthesis thickness, and the mean cyclic number of broken specimens on 0.5 mm thickness was 8480 ± 2009
Summary
Implant-supported fixed partial dental prosthesis is a popular treatment option for partially edentulous patients. The mean implant failure rate of fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous patients was reported to be 6% in both the maxilla and mandible (range: 1.9–12.5%) [1,2]. Conditions that contribute to restoration failure include cracking, chipping fracture, bulk fracture, excessive wear of the opposing tooth surface, excessive roughening of the ceramic surface, and unacceptable esthetics. Anusavice [3] defined restoration success as intact prosthesis survival with acceptable surface quality, anatomic contour, function, and esthetic. In clinical settings, delivering an implant prosthesis is.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
