Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Tooth Supported All-Ceramic Restorations after Aging

Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Tooth Supported All-Ceramic Restorations after Aging

Introduction: This study investigates marginal adaptation of the tooth and abutment interface of implant-tooth supported restorations after thermal and mechanical loading (TCML) .

Methods: Human molar teeth and implants were inserted in resin at a distance of 10 mm. The roots of the teeth were coated with a polyether layer to simulate the physiological movement of the periodont. In contrast, the implants were fixed in the resin without any possibility of movement. Zirconia FPDs were CAD/CAM constructed and adhesively luted. Implant-implant supported FPDs were the control. TCML: 1.200.000x50 N, 1.6 Hz, 6.000x5°/55°C, 8.3d. Epoxy resin replicas of marginal area of implants and teeth were constructed before and after TCML to determine semi-quantitatively the marginal fit using a scanning electron microscope. The interfaces tooth/cement/restoration and implant/cement/restoration were investigated before and after aging. Statistics: ANOVA, p = 0.05.

Results:

Implant-Implant (control)	Implant-tooth-supported all-ceramic FPDs (n=8)
	All-ceramic: Cercon-base, Kiss (DeguDent); Implant: XiVE S (Dentsply-Friadent)		All-ceramic: Procera Zirconia, Vita VM 9; Implant: Replace-NP 3.5 (Nobel-Biocare)
	Percentage (%) of "perfect margin" after TCML; means / standard deviation
Implant+Titaniumabutment
crown/cement	99.20	+/- 1.37	93.11	+/- 10.68
cement/abutment	100.00	+/- 0.00	97.91	+/- 5.13
Tooth
crown/cement	98.45	+/- 2.34	74.20	+/- 18.87
cement/tooth	98.75	+/- 2.60	84.95	+/- 20.42
Implant+All-ceramic-Abutment
crown/cement	93.13	+/- 8.76	82.40	+/- 20.89
cement/abutment	97.50	+/- 3.93	98.96	+/- 2.56
Tooth
crown/cement	89.09	+/- 14.80	77.68	+/- 9.65
cement/tooth	90.57	+/- 12.40	84.40	+/- 17.37
Implant-Implant (control)
crown/cement	100.00	+/- 0.00	-	-
cement/abutment	100.00	+/- 0.00	-	-

No statistically significant differences were found between the percentage of the criterion "perfect margin" of all tested groups.

Conclusion: Compared to implant supported FPDs, implant-tooth supported, showed a tendency to an increasing risk of debonding on the tooth side interface after aging.