Premium
Marginal Adaptation of All‐Ceramic Crowns on Implant Abutments
Author(s) -
Att Wael,
Hoischen Tomas,
Gerds Thomas,
Strub Jörg Rudolf
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00079.x
Subject(s) - dentistry , cementation (geology) , cubic zirconia , crown (dentistry) , materials science , masticatory force , molar , implant , dental porcelain , orthodontics , ceramic , medicine , composite material , surgery , cement
Background: Studies focusing on the marginal accuracy of all‐ceramic crowns on implant abutments are in short supply. Purpose: This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of all‐ceramic crowns on different implant abutments. Materials and Methods: Ninety‐six standardized maxillary central incisor crowns (48 alumina and 48 zirconia) were fabricated for each of the six test groups ( n = 16) (Ti1, titanium abutments–alumina crowns; Ti2, titanium abutments–zirconia crowns; Al1, alumina abutments–alumina crowns; Al2, alumina abutments–zirconia crowns; Zr1, zirconia abutments–alumina crowns; Zr2, zirconia abutments–zirconia crowns). The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent. The marginal gaps were examined on epoxy replicas before and after luting as well as after masticatory simulation at 200× magnification. Results: The geometrical mean (95% confidence limits) marginal gap values before cementation, after cementation, and after masticatory simulation were group Ti1: 39(37–42), 57(53–62), and 49(46–53); group Ti2: 43(40–47), 71(67–76), and 64(59–69); group Al1: 57(54–61), 87(85–90), and 67(65–69); group Al2: 66(63–69), 96(90–101), and 75(72–78); group Zr1: 54(51–57), 79(76–82), and 65(63–67); and group Zr2: 64(60–68), 85(80–91), and 75(70–81). The comparison between non‐cemented and cemented stages in each group demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap values after cementation in all groups ( p < .001), while the comparison between cemented and aged stages in each group showed a significant decrease in the marginal gap values in groups Al1, Al2, and Zr1 ( p < .0001). This reduction was not significant for groups Ti1, Ti2, and Zr2 ( p > .05). Conclusion: The marginal accuracy of all tested restorations meets the requirements for clinical acceptance.