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

Abstract

ObjectivesTo 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 methodsRoxolid 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 (Finitial) and at catastrophic fracture (Fmax) were measured and statistical evaluation was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests. ResultsThe mean values ranged between 190 ± 73 and 510 ± 459 N for Finitial groups, and between 468 ± 76 and 1579 ± 249 N for Fmax, respectively. Regarding Finitial, 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 Fmax data (I–I-Xa < X-I-Xb < I-X-Ic) (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. ConclusionResults 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).