Abstract
This study investigates the retention load (RL) between ZrO2 primary crowns and secondary polyetheretherketone (PEEK) crowns made by different fabrication methods with three different tapers. Standardized primary ZrO2 crowns were fabricated with three different tapers: 0°, 1°, and 2° (n = 10/group). Ten secondary crowns were fabricated (i) milled from breCam BioHPP blanks (PM); (ii) pressed from industrially fabricated PEEK pellets (PP) (BioHPP Pellet); or (iii) pressed from granular PEEK (PG) (BioHPP Granulat). One calibrated operator adjusted all crowns. In total, the RL of 90 secondary crowns were measured in pull-off tests at 50 mm/min, and each specimen was tested 20 times. Two- and one-way ANOVAs followed by a Scheffé’s post-hoc test were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). Within crowns with a 0° taper, the PP group showed significantly higher retention load values compared with the other groups. Among the 1° taper, the PM group presented significantly lower retention loads than the PP group. However, the pressing type had no impact on the results. Within the 2° taper, the fabrication method had no influence on the RL. Within the PM group, the 2° taper showed significantly higher retention load compared with the 1° taper. The taper with 0° was in the same range value as the 1° and 2° tapers. No impact of the taper on the retention value was observed between the PP groups. Within the PG groups, the 0° taper presented significantly lower RL than the 1° taper, whereas the 2° taper showed no differences. The fabrication method of the secondary PEEK crowns and taper angles showed no consistent effect within all tested groups.
Highlights
In prosthetic dentistry, metal and alloys are the most commonly approved materials [1]
Knowledge, there are no existing published studies with regard to this topic—especially when aiming to assess the retention load between ZrO2 primary crowns and secondary PEEK crowns made by different fabrication methods with three different tapers
The primary crowns were made from ZrO2 (Ceramill ZI 71; AmannGirrbach AG, Koblach, Austria, LOT: 1303002), whereas the secondary crowns were made from PEEK materials: (i) breCam BioHPP blanks for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling; (ii) BioHPP Pellet for PEEK pellet pressing; (iii) BioHPP Granulat for PEEK granular pressing
Summary
Metal and alloys are the most commonly approved materials [1]. The direct contact of different metals in the oral cavity, as well as metallic ions solved in saliva [3], may cause galvanic corrosion. This problem has been extensively investigated in several. Known for its corrosion resistance [3], may cause corrosion when used in so-called polymetallism [7] This phenomenon was observed in a primate study with titanium implants combined with superstructures from precious alloys. The same study mentioned no cytotoxicity of zirconia implants [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
