PURPOSE: One-visit in-office CAD/CAM fabrication of esthetic ceramic crowns as a superstructure for posterior implants is quite new. The aim of the study was to evaluate the strength of esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM crowns with varied occlusal thickness and seated with adhesive and nonadhesive cements on titanium and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM-generated molar crowns (n = 15 per group) with occlusal thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm were seated on titanium (1) and zirconia (2) abutments: noncemented (a) and with nonadhesive cement (b) or 2 adhesive resin-based cements (c) and (d). In addition, 15 molar crowns with 5.5-mm occlusal thickness were seated on short zirconia abutments (3) using cements (c) and (d). All crowns had the identical occlusal morphology and were loaded with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Load data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, the Scheffé test, and Weibull probability of failure analysis. RESULTS: Fracture loads of 1.5-mm occlusal thickness crowns (a, b, c, d) were higher (P < .001) than those of 0.5-mm crowns (except for group ld). Occlusal 5.5-mm crowns on short zirconia abutments had similar (2c) or less (2d) strength than the respective 1.5-mm crowns. Nonadhesive crowns (1b, 2b) were weaker (P < .001) than adhesive crowns (1c, 1d, 2c, 2d). Fracture loads of 0.5- and 1.5-mm crowns were significantly higher on titanium than on zirconia abutments with both cements. Adhesive cement d generally showed higher fracture loads than c on both titanium and zirconia. CONCLUSION: Esthetic ceramic CAD/CAM molar implant crowns gained high strength with adhesive cements on both titanium and zirconia implant abutments compared to nonadhesive cementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolf et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: