Occlusal Thickness and Cement-Type Effects on Fracture Resistance of Implant-Supported Posterior Monolithic Zirconia Crowns.

Abstract

PURPOSE\nTo evaluate the factors that could influence the fracture resistance of implant-supported posterior monolithic zirconia crowns.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nSixty zirconia molar crowns with three different occlusal thicknesses of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm (20 samples per group) were prepared for implant abutments using a CAD/CAM system. In each group, 10 crowns were luted on the abutment with resin cement (Panavia F), and the other 10 crowns were luted with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Plus). Dynamic loading (1.2 × 106 cycles; 70 N) and thermal cycling were applied to the samples using a chewing simulator before evaluating their fracture resistance with a universal testing machine and examining their fracture type using a stereomicroscope. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Duncan test, and two-way ANOVA were used for data evaluation (α = .05).\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe occlusal thickness (P < .001) and cement type (P < .01) affected the fracture load of the monolithic zirconia crowns. The highest fracture resistance was found in 1.5-mm-thick crowns luted with resin cement (4,212 ± 501 N), and the lowest fracture resistance was found in 0.5-mm and 1-mmthick crowns luted with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (1,198 ± 116 N and 1,197 ± 66 N). A significant difference was not found in the mean maximum fracture load between the 1.5-mm-thick crowns cemented with resin cement and glass-ionomer resin cement.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nBoth the occlusal thickness and cement type remarkably affected the fracture resistance of the crowns, but occlusal thickness was more significant. Implant-supported posterior zirconia crowns can withstand physiologic occlusal forces even with a thickness as low as 0.5 mm. Resin luting cement is recommended for implant-supported posterior zirconia crowns with reduced occlusal thickness.