MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF TWO TYPES OF MONOLITHIC PRESSABLE CROWNS SUPPORTED BY DIFFERENT IMPLANT ABUTMENTS AFTER THERMO-MECHANICAL FATIGUE
Main Article Content
Keywords
Ceramic-reinforced PEEK (BioHPP), IPS e.max Press, Margin adaptation, PEEK implant abutment, Titanium abutment, Thermomechanical fatigue
Abstract
Purpose: Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) is a sole polymer material that has recently been introduced to dentistry; marginal gap is increased significantly after thermomechanical fatigue (TF) as well as cement dissolution and, lastly failure of restoration. The current research aimed to evaluate the marginal adaptation of two kinds of monolithic pressable crowns supported by different implant abutments after thermo-mechanical fatigue.
Materials: Blocks of epoxy resin were used to insert twenty – eight titanium dummy implants and allocated into 2 groups according to type of implant abutments (n=14): titanium implant abutments group (Ti) and ceramic-reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone implant abutments group (PEEK). Every group was then subdivided into 2 subgroups (n = 7) in accordance with the kind of crowns: monolithic lithium disilicate "IPS e.max Press" crowns subgroup (EP) and monolithic ceramic reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone (BioHPP Granulates) crowns subgroup (BG). All crowns were fabricated by means of the pressing technique. After surface treatments, adhesive cementation was performed for all crowns. The samples were subjected to thermomechanical fatigue (TF). Marginal adaptation was measured before and after thermomechanical fatigue by means of a digital stereomicroscope.
Results: PEEK group recorded lower marginal gap mean scores prior and following thermomechanical fatigue (29.06±7.84µm) (39.70±12.00µm) respectively compared to Ti group (41.57±8.82µm) (51.02±12.53µm) respectively. (EP) recorded lower marginal gap mean scores compared to (BG) prior and following thermomechanical fatigue in both different implant abutments.
Conclusions: For all tested materials, the marginal gap mean scores documented in the current research were within the limits of standards that are deemed appropriate by clinicians.
References
2. Al-Zordk W, Elmisery A, Ghazy M. Hybrid-abutment-restoration: effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging. Int J Implant Dent 2020; 24:3-7. https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs40729-020-00220-y
3. Fabris RR, Caldas RA, Miranda MS. Comparative stress evaluation of different types of prosthetic abutment and crown with an internal connection implant. Res Soc Dev J 2021; 10:4-17. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13933
4. Benakatti VB, Sajjanar JA, Acharya A. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Dentistry. Clin Diagn Res J 2019; 13:1-3. https://doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001.
5. Martínez B, Herrera A, González M. Behavior of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) in prostheses on dental implants. A review. J Clin Exp Dent 2021; 13:520-6. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58102
6. Rasha N, Sami F. Marginal adaptation of various cad/cam all-ceramic superstructures cemented on ready and custom made zirconia abutments. Egy Dent J 2017; 63:1801-18. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2017.75135
7. Tekin S, Cangül S, Adıgüzel Ö, Deg˘ er Y. Areas for use of PEEK material in dentistry. Int Dent Res J 2018;8 :84-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2018.vol8.no2.6
8. Zarone F, Mauro M, Ausiello P, Ruggiero G, Sorrentino R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health J 2019; 19:134-45. https://doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x
9. Rasha N. Sami R. Marginal Adaptation Of Various Cad/Cam All-Ceramic Superstructures Cemented On Ready And Custom Made Zirconia Abutments. Egy Dent J 2017; 63:1801-18. https://doi: 10.1111/jopr.12800
10. Atsü SS, Aksan E, Bulut A. Fracture resistance of titanium, zirconia, and ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone implant abutments supporting cad/cam monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic crowns after aging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34:622-30. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7036
11. Elsayed A, Wille S, Al-Akhali M, Kern M. Comparison of fracture strength and failure mode of different ceramic implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117:499-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.018
12. Meshreky M, Halim C, Katamish H. Vertical marginal gap distance of cad/cam milled biohpp peek coping veneered by hipc compared to zirconia coping veneered by cad-on lithium disilicate “in-vitro study”. Adv Dent J 2020; 2:43-50. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjc.2020.21032.1043
13. Baldi D, Lombardi T, Colombo J, Cervino G, Perinetti G. Correlation between insertion torque and implant stability quotient in tapered implants with knife-edge thread design. Biomed Res Int J 2018; 15:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7201093
14. Benakatti V, Sajjanar J, Acharya A. Dental implant abutments and their selection - a review. JEvolution Med Dent Sci 2021; 10:3053-9. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2021/622
15. Jung S, Moser M, Kleinheinz J, Happe A. Biocompatibility of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics with different surface topographies for dental implant abutments. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22:1-4. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147700
16. Verma S, Sharma N, Kango S, Sharma S. Developments of PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) as a biomedical material: A focused review. Eur Polym J 2021; 147:436-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110295
17. Emam ZN, Aleem NA. Influence of different materials and preparation design on marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of cad/cam fabricated occlusal veneers. Egy Dent J 2020; 66:439-52. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2020.79120
18. Fontoura D, Barros M, Magalhães C, Moreira A. Evaluation of vertical misfit of CAD/CAM implant-supported titanium and zirconia frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33:1027-32. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6320
19. León M, Vielba M, Saiz E, Klemm I, Özcan M. Marginal and internal gap of handmade, milled and 3d printed additive manufactured patterns for pressed lithium disilicate onlay restorations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26:31-8. https://doi.org/10.1922/ejprd_01733revillaleon08
20. Saha M, Bansal S, Pathak V, Bhardwaj S, Chauhan A. A comparative evaluation of fracture load of monolithic and bilayered zirconia crowns with and without a cervical collar: an in vitro study. Med Pharm Rep J 2019; 92:172-7. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-985
21. Gungor M, Nemli S. Fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic ceramic and veneered zirconia molar crowns after aging in a mastication simulator. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119: 473-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.003
22. Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Soltani N. Marginal discrepancy of single implant- supported metal copings fabricated by various cad/cam and conventional techniques using different materials. Eur J Dent 2019; 13:563-8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700364
23. McLean J, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131:107-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708
24. Görüş A, Deniz Üner D. Evaluation of marginal fits of crown substructure designs in implant-supported abutments. Med Sci Monit J 2018; 24:7778-84. https://doi.org/10.12659%2FMSM.910490
25. Abou-Ayash S, Schimmel M, ¨Ozcan M, Ozcelik B. Trueness and marginal fit of implant-supported complete-arch fixed prosthesis frameworks made of high-performance polymers and titanium: An explorative in-vitro study. Dent J 2021; 113:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103784
26. Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Sahebi M, Nazari V. Marginal adaptation of implant prostheses fabricated by different materials in excessive crown height space before and after veneering. Front Dent Med J 2021; 18:1-8. https://doi.org/10.18502%2Ffid.v18i28.6938
27. Jin H, Teng M, Wang Z, Wang W, Jiang S, Zhao B. Comparative evaluation of BioHPP and titanium as a framework veneered with composite resin for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122:383-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.003
28. Godil AZ, Kazi AI, Wadwan SA, Gandhi KY, Dugal RJS. Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of endocrowns using lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone computer-aided design - computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2021; 24:190-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_547_20
29. Dennison JB, Sarrett DC. Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins. Review Article. J Oral Rehab 2012; 39:301-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02267
30. Lakshmi RD, Abraham A, Sekar V, Hariharan A. Influence of connector dimensions on the stress distribution of monolithic zirconia and lithium-disilicate inlay retained fixed dental prostheses – A 3D finite element analysis. Tanta Dent J 2015; 12:56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tdj.2015.01.001
31. Hallmann L, Ulmer P, Gerngross D, Jetter J, Mintrone M. Properties of hot-pressed lithium silicate glass-ceramics. Dent Mater J 2019; 35:713-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.027
32. Park JY, Bae SY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9:159-69. https://doi.org/10.4047%2Fjap.2017.9.3.159
33. Vasiliu RD, Porojan SD, Porojan L. In vitro study of comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit between heat-pressed and CAD-CAM monolithic glass-ceramic restorations after thermal aging. Mater J 2020; 13:1-14. https://doi:10.3390/ma13194239
34. Haggag K, Abbas M, Ramadan H. Effect of thermo mechanical aging on the marginal fit of two types of monolithic zirconia crowns with two finish line designs. Al-Azhar Dent J Girls 2018; 5:121-8. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjg.2018.7999