Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns

Estevam A. Bonfante, Marcelo Suzuki, Fábio C. Lorenzoni, Lídia A. Sena, Ronaldo Hirata, Gerson Bonfante, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the probability of survival and failure modes of implant-supported resin nanoceramic relative to metal-ceramic crowns. Methods Resin nanoceramic molar crowns (LU) (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, USA) were milled and metal-ceramic (MC) (Co-Cr alloy, Wirobond C+, Bego, USA) with identical anatomy were fabricated (n = 21). The metal coping and a burnout-resin veneer were created by CAD/CAM, using an abutment (Stealth-abutment, Bicon LLC, USA) and a milled crown from the LU group as models for porcelain hot-pressing (GC-Initial IQ-Press, GC, USA). Crowns were cemented, the implants (n = 42, Bicon) embedded in acrylic-resin for mechanical testing, and subjected to single-load to fracture (SLF, n = 3 each) for determination of step-stress profiles for accelerated-life testing in water (n = 18 each). Weibull curves (50,000 cycles at 200N, 90% CI) were plotted. Weibull modulus (m) and characteristic strength (η) were calculated and a contour plot used (m versus η) for determining differences between groups. Fractography was performed in SEM and polarized-light microscopy. Results SLF mean values were 1871N (±54.03) for MC and 1748N (±50.71) for LU. Beta values were 0.11 for MC and 0.49 for LU. Weibull modulus was 9.56 and η = 1038.8N for LU, and m = 4.57 and η = 945.42N for MC (p > 0.10). Probability of survival (50,000 and 100,000 cycles at 200 and 300N) was 100% for LU and 99% for MC. Failures were cohesive within LU. In MC crowns, porcelain veneer fractures frequently extended to the supporting metal coping. Conclusion Probability of survival was not different between crown materials, but failure modes differed. Significance In load bearing regions, similar reliability should be expected for metal ceramics, known as the gold standard, and resin nanoceramic crowns over implants. Failure modes involving porcelain veneer fracture and delamination in MC crowns are less likely to be successfully repaired compared to cohesive failures in resin nanoceramic material.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e168-e177
JournalDental Materials
Volume31
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015

Fingerprint

Computer-Aided Design
Cermets
Ceramics
Computer aided manufacturing
Crowns
Computer aided design
Resins
Metals
Veneers
Dental Porcelain
Porcelain
Failure modes
Bearings (structural)
Acrylic Resins
Fractography
Mechanical testing
Polarization Microscopy
Hot pressing
Light polarization
Delamination

Keywords

  • Crown
  • Fatigue
  • Fractography
  • Implant
  • Metal ceramic
  • Resin nanoceramic
  • Step-stress accelerated life test
  • Weibull

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

Bonfante, E. A., Suzuki, M., Lorenzoni, F. C., Sena, L. A., Hirata, R., Bonfante, G., & Coelho, P. (2015). Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns. Dental Materials, 31(8), e168-e177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006

Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns. / Bonfante, Estevam A.; Suzuki, Marcelo; Lorenzoni, Fábio C.; Sena, Lídia A.; Hirata, Ronaldo; Bonfante, Gerson; Coelho, Paulo.

In: Dental Materials, Vol. 31, No. 8, 01.08.2015, p. e168-e177.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bonfante, EA, Suzuki, M, Lorenzoni, FC, Sena, LA, Hirata, R, Bonfante, G & Coelho, P 2015, 'Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns', Dental Materials, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. e168-e177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006
Bonfante EA, Suzuki M, Lorenzoni FC, Sena LA, Hirata R, Bonfante G et al. Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns. Dental Materials. 2015 Aug 1;31(8):e168-e177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006
Bonfante, Estevam A. ; Suzuki, Marcelo ; Lorenzoni, Fábio C. ; Sena, Lídia A. ; Hirata, Ronaldo ; Bonfante, Gerson ; Coelho, Paulo. / Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns. In: Dental Materials. 2015 ; Vol. 31, No. 8. pp. e168-e177.
@article{ae3e02a68a0e40f983b54253d33dca80,
title = "Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns",
abstract = "Objectives To evaluate the probability of survival and failure modes of implant-supported resin nanoceramic relative to metal-ceramic crowns. Methods Resin nanoceramic molar crowns (LU) (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, USA) were milled and metal-ceramic (MC) (Co-Cr alloy, Wirobond C+, Bego, USA) with identical anatomy were fabricated (n = 21). The metal coping and a burnout-resin veneer were created by CAD/CAM, using an abutment (Stealth-abutment, Bicon LLC, USA) and a milled crown from the LU group as models for porcelain hot-pressing (GC-Initial IQ-Press, GC, USA). Crowns were cemented, the implants (n = 42, Bicon) embedded in acrylic-resin for mechanical testing, and subjected to single-load to fracture (SLF, n = 3 each) for determination of step-stress profiles for accelerated-life testing in water (n = 18 each). Weibull curves (50,000 cycles at 200N, 90{\%} CI) were plotted. Weibull modulus (m) and characteristic strength (η) were calculated and a contour plot used (m versus η) for determining differences between groups. Fractography was performed in SEM and polarized-light microscopy. Results SLF mean values were 1871N (±54.03) for MC and 1748N (±50.71) for LU. Beta values were 0.11 for MC and 0.49 for LU. Weibull modulus was 9.56 and η = 1038.8N for LU, and m = 4.57 and η = 945.42N for MC (p > 0.10). Probability of survival (50,000 and 100,000 cycles at 200 and 300N) was 100{\%} for LU and 99{\%} for MC. Failures were cohesive within LU. In MC crowns, porcelain veneer fractures frequently extended to the supporting metal coping. Conclusion Probability of survival was not different between crown materials, but failure modes differed. Significance In load bearing regions, similar reliability should be expected for metal ceramics, known as the gold standard, and resin nanoceramic crowns over implants. Failure modes involving porcelain veneer fracture and delamination in MC crowns are less likely to be successfully repaired compared to cohesive failures in resin nanoceramic material.",
keywords = "Crown, Fatigue, Fractography, Implant, Metal ceramic, Resin nanoceramic, Step-stress accelerated life test, Weibull",
author = "Bonfante, {Estevam A.} and Marcelo Suzuki and Lorenzoni, {F{\'a}bio C.} and Sena, {L{\'i}dia A.} and Ronaldo Hirata and Gerson Bonfante and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "e168--e177",
journal = "Dental Materials",
issn = "0109-5641",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

AU - Suzuki, Marcelo

AU - Lorenzoni, Fábio C.

AU - Sena, Lídia A.

AU - Hirata, Ronaldo

AU - Bonfante, Gerson

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - Objectives To evaluate the probability of survival and failure modes of implant-supported resin nanoceramic relative to metal-ceramic crowns. Methods Resin nanoceramic molar crowns (LU) (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, USA) were milled and metal-ceramic (MC) (Co-Cr alloy, Wirobond C+, Bego, USA) with identical anatomy were fabricated (n = 21). The metal coping and a burnout-resin veneer were created by CAD/CAM, using an abutment (Stealth-abutment, Bicon LLC, USA) and a milled crown from the LU group as models for porcelain hot-pressing (GC-Initial IQ-Press, GC, USA). Crowns were cemented, the implants (n = 42, Bicon) embedded in acrylic-resin for mechanical testing, and subjected to single-load to fracture (SLF, n = 3 each) for determination of step-stress profiles for accelerated-life testing in water (n = 18 each). Weibull curves (50,000 cycles at 200N, 90% CI) were plotted. Weibull modulus (m) and characteristic strength (η) were calculated and a contour plot used (m versus η) for determining differences between groups. Fractography was performed in SEM and polarized-light microscopy. Results SLF mean values were 1871N (±54.03) for MC and 1748N (±50.71) for LU. Beta values were 0.11 for MC and 0.49 for LU. Weibull modulus was 9.56 and η = 1038.8N for LU, and m = 4.57 and η = 945.42N for MC (p > 0.10). Probability of survival (50,000 and 100,000 cycles at 200 and 300N) was 100% for LU and 99% for MC. Failures were cohesive within LU. In MC crowns, porcelain veneer fractures frequently extended to the supporting metal coping. Conclusion Probability of survival was not different between crown materials, but failure modes differed. Significance In load bearing regions, similar reliability should be expected for metal ceramics, known as the gold standard, and resin nanoceramic crowns over implants. Failure modes involving porcelain veneer fracture and delamination in MC crowns are less likely to be successfully repaired compared to cohesive failures in resin nanoceramic material.

AB - Objectives To evaluate the probability of survival and failure modes of implant-supported resin nanoceramic relative to metal-ceramic crowns. Methods Resin nanoceramic molar crowns (LU) (Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE, USA) were milled and metal-ceramic (MC) (Co-Cr alloy, Wirobond C+, Bego, USA) with identical anatomy were fabricated (n = 21). The metal coping and a burnout-resin veneer were created by CAD/CAM, using an abutment (Stealth-abutment, Bicon LLC, USA) and a milled crown from the LU group as models for porcelain hot-pressing (GC-Initial IQ-Press, GC, USA). Crowns were cemented, the implants (n = 42, Bicon) embedded in acrylic-resin for mechanical testing, and subjected to single-load to fracture (SLF, n = 3 each) for determination of step-stress profiles for accelerated-life testing in water (n = 18 each). Weibull curves (50,000 cycles at 200N, 90% CI) were plotted. Weibull modulus (m) and characteristic strength (η) were calculated and a contour plot used (m versus η) for determining differences between groups. Fractography was performed in SEM and polarized-light microscopy. Results SLF mean values were 1871N (±54.03) for MC and 1748N (±50.71) for LU. Beta values were 0.11 for MC and 0.49 for LU. Weibull modulus was 9.56 and η = 1038.8N for LU, and m = 4.57 and η = 945.42N for MC (p > 0.10). Probability of survival (50,000 and 100,000 cycles at 200 and 300N) was 100% for LU and 99% for MC. Failures were cohesive within LU. In MC crowns, porcelain veneer fractures frequently extended to the supporting metal coping. Conclusion Probability of survival was not different between crown materials, but failure modes differed. Significance In load bearing regions, similar reliability should be expected for metal ceramics, known as the gold standard, and resin nanoceramic crowns over implants. Failure modes involving porcelain veneer fracture and delamination in MC crowns are less likely to be successfully repaired compared to cohesive failures in resin nanoceramic material.

KW - Crown

KW - Fatigue

KW - Fractography

KW - Implant

KW - Metal ceramic

KW - Resin nanoceramic

KW - Step-stress accelerated life test

KW - Weibull

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937514888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937514888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2015.05.006

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - e168-e177

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

SN - 0109-5641

IS - 8

ER -