Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Impact forces in implant supported FDP (fixed dental prosthesis) are higher than that of tooth supported FDPs and the compositions used in frameworks also has a paramount role for biomechanical reasons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the flexural strength of two different zirconia frameworks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant abutments with 3.8 mm and 4.5 mm platform were used as premolar and molar. They were mounted vertically in an acrylic resin block. A model with steel retainers and removable abutments was fabricated by milling machine; and 10 FDP frameworks were fabricated for each Biodenta and Cercon systems. All samples were thermo-cycled for 2000 times in 5-55℃ temperature and embedded in 37℃ artificial saliva for one week. The flexural test was done by a rod with 2 mm ending diameter which was applied to the multi-electromechanical machine. The force was inserted until observing fracture. The collected data were analyzed with SPSS software ver.15, using Weibull modulus and independent t-test with the level of significance at α=.05. RESULTS: The mean load bearing capacity values were higher in Biodenta but with no significant differences (P>.05). The Biodenta frameworks showed higher load bearing capacity (F0=1700) than Cercon frameworks (F0=1520) but the reliability (m) was higher in Cercon (m=7.5). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between flexural strengths of both zirconia based framework systems; and both Biodenta and Cercon systems are capable to withstand biting force (even parafunctions) in posterior implant-supported bridges with no significant differences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rismanchian et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: