Premium
Effect of Framework Shape on the Fracture Strength of Implant‐Supported All‐Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures in the Molar Region
Author(s) -
Tsumita Mitsuyoshi,
Kokubo Yuji,
Von Steyern Per Vult,
Fukushima Shunji
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2007.00287.x
Subject(s) - materials science , veneer , fracture (geology) , ultimate tensile strength , dental porcelain , ceramic , composite material , stress (linguistics) , orthodontics , medicine , philosophy , linguistics
Abstract Purpose: The aim of the present study was to clarify the effects of the shape of the zirconium framework of implant‐supported, all‐ceramic fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on the fracture strength and fracture mode. Materials and Methods: This study consisted of mechanical strength testing and 3D finite element analysis (FEA). The three framework shapes used in this study were: (1) conventional shape (control); (2) convex shape: 1.0‐mm curve in the direction of the occlusal surface; and (3) concave shape: 1.0‐mm curve in the direction of the gingival surface. Five frameworks were made for each condition (total: 15). A load (N) was applied until the FPD fractured. For FEA, a 3D model consisting of cortical bone, cancellous bone, implant bodies, and superstructure was constructed. Results: The results of the mechanical strength test showed that fracture load was 916.0 ± 150.1 N for the conventional shape, 1690.5 ± 205.3 N for the convex shape, and 1515.5 ± 137.0 N for the concave shape. The mean final fracture load for the FPDs with frameworks was the highest for the convex shape; however, a critical crack in the veneer porcelain (736.5 ± 145.2 N) was confirmed during loading for the convex shape. Stress distribution maps for all conditions showed that tensile stress was generated at the veneer porcelain on the gingival side of the mesial and distal connectors of the pontic; however, there were differences in the maximum value and stress distribution within the framework. Conclusion: The shape of the framework, particularly the shape of the pontic–connector interface, affects the stress distribution, fracture strength, and fracture mode of all‐ceramic FPDs, and stress concentration inside a framework may induce cracking of layering porcelain.