Premium
Fracture Strength of Zirconia Implants after Artificial Aging
Author(s) -
Andreiotelli Marina,
Kohal RalfJoachim
Publication year - 2009
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.1708-8208.2008.00105.x
Subject(s) - cubic zirconia , implant , materials science , dentistry , abutment , titanium , universal testing machine , fracture (geology) , composite material , medicine , ceramic , ultimate tensile strength , metallurgy , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
Background: Zirconia (ZrO 2 ) might be an alternative material to titanium (Ti) for dental implant fabrication. However, no data are available on the fracture strength of one‐piece ZrO 2 oral implants. Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength of ZrO 2 implants after exposure to the artificial mouth. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty ZrO 2 and Ti implants were used. The Ti implants were divided into two control groups (A and B). ZrO 2 implants manufactured from yttria‐stabilized tetragonal ZrO 2 polycrystal (Y‐TZP) in group C, from Y‐TZP dotted with alumina (Y‐TZP‐A) in group D, and from Y‐TZP‐A with a modified surface in groups E and F were used. In group F, the implant heads were prepared, and in group G, the implants were restored with ZrO 2 crowns. Each group included 16 samples with the exception of group D, which included 24 samples. A subgroup of each implant type (eight implants) was subjected to thermomechanical cycling in a chewing simulator prior to fracture testing. Test specimens were then loaded until a fracture occurred. Results: Seven of the 120 samples failed in the chewing simulator. ZrO 2 implant fracture occurred at 725 to 850 N when the implants were not prepared, and at 539 to 607 N when prepared. The samples in group A fractured at the level of the abutment screw. All ZrO 2 implants fractured at the level of the Technovit® resin (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH & Co., Wehrheim, Germany). No fracture of the ZrO 2 crowns in group G was observed. Conclusion: Mean fracture strength values obtained were all within the limits of clinical acceptance. However, implant preparation had a statistically significant negative influence on the implant fracture strength. Long‐term clinical data are necessary before one‐piece ZrO 2 implants can be recommended for daily practice.