Fracture load of monolithic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns and veneered zirconia crowns as a posterior implant restoration

Jee Hwan Kim, Su Jeong Lee, Jun Sub Park, Jae Jun Ryu

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    33 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To compare the fracture load and failure mode of the monolithic lithium disilicate crown (e.max group) and 2 types of veneered zirconia crowns, hand layer (ZV group) and heat pressed (ZP group), as a posterior implant-supported restoration. METHODS: A total of 24 all-ceramic crowns for molar tooth were fabricated using the computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) system. The e.max group crowns and zirconia copings for ZV and ZP groups were fabricated using a Cerec milling unit. The ZV group was fabricated using a hand-layer veneering method, and the ZP group using a heat-pressing method. All crowns were luted to the abutments, which were connected to implant fixtures, using resin cement. Fracture load was measured using the universal testing machine, and the fracture surface was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The ZP group showed significantly higher fracture load (5229.3 N) compared with the e.max group (3852.1 N) and ZV group (3100.3 N). All fractures in the ZV group occurred in the veneered layer. CONCLUSION: Monolithic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns are applicable to posterior implant-supported restorations because the fracture load was higher than the average occlusal force.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)66-70
    Number of pages5
    JournalImplant Dentistry
    Volume22
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013 Feb

    Keywords

    • CAD/CAM
    • Lithium disilicate
    • Monolithic crown
    • Zirconia crown

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oral Surgery

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Fracture load of monolithic CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic crowns and veneered zirconia crowns as a posterior implant restoration'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this