MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixmaster dies were duplicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth using nonprecious metal alloy (Wiron 99). Ten copings of 0.6 mm thickness were fabricated from each type of ceramic, for a total of thirty copings. Two master dies were used for each group, and each of them was used to lute five copings. All groups were cemented with resin luting cement Panavia F according to manufacturer's instructions and received a static load of 5 kg during cementation. After 24 hours of distilled water storage at 37 degrees C, the copings were vertically compressed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
RESULTS: The results of the present study showed the following mean loads at fracture: Turkom-Cera (2184 +/- 164 N), In-Ceram (2042 +/- 200 N), and Procera AllCeram (1954 +/- 211 N). ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc test showed that the mean load at fracture of Turkom-Cera was significantly different from Procera AllCeram (p < 0.05). Scheffe's post hoc test showed no significant difference between the mean load at fracture of Turkom-Cera and In-Ceram or between the mean load at fracture of In-Ceram and Procera AllCeram.
CONCLUSION: Because Turkom-Cera demonstrated equal to or higher loads at fracture than currently accepted all-ceramic materials, it would seem to be acceptable for fabrication of anterior and posterior ceramic crowns.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the crestal strain around 2 implants to support mandibular overdentures when placed at different positions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Edentulous mandibles were 3-dimensionally (3D) designed separately with 2 holes for implant placement at similar distances of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm from the midline, resulting in 4 study conditions. The complete denture models were 3D designed and printed from digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) images after scanning the patient's denture. Two 4.3×12-mm dummy implants were placed in the preplanned holes. Two linear strain gauges were attached on the crest of the mesial and distal side of each implant (CH1, CH2, CH3, and CH4) and connected to a computer to record the electrical signals. Male LOCATOR attachments were attached, the mucosal layer simulated, and the denture picked up with pink female nylon caps. A unilateral and bilateral force of 100 N was maintained for 10 seconds for each model in a universal testing machine while recording the maximum strains in the DCS-100A KYOWA computer software program. Data were analyzed by using 1-way analysis of variance, the Tukey post hoc test, and the paired t test (α=.05).
RESULTS: Under bilateral loading, the strain values indicated a trend with increasing distance between the implants with both right and left distal strain gauges (CH4 and CH1). The negative (-ve) values indicated the compressive force, and the positive (+ve) values indicated the tensile force being applied on the strain gauges. The strain values for CH4 ranged between -166.08 for the 5-mm and -251.58 for the 20-mm position; and for CH1 between -168.08 for the 5-mm and -297.83 for the 20-mm position. The remaining 2 mesial strain gauges for all 4 implant positions remained lower than for CH4 and CH1. Under unilateral-right loading, only the right-side distal strain gauge CH4 indicated the increasing trend in the strain values with -147.5 for the 5-mm, -157.17 for the 10-mm, -209.33 for the 15-mm, and -234.75 for the 20 mm position. The remaining 3 strain gauges CH3, CH2, and CH1 ranged between -28.33 and -107.17. For each position for both implants, significantly higher (P
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate crestal bone loss (CBL) around zirconia dental implants and clinical periimplant inflammatory parameters.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The focus question addressed was, "Do zirconia implants maintain crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health?" Databases were searched for articles from 1977 through September 2014 with different combinations of the following MeSH terms: "dental implants," "zirconium," "alveolar bone loss," "periodontal attachment loss," "periodontal pocket," "periodontal index." Letters to the editor, case reports, commentaries, review articles, and articles published in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies were included. In 8 of the studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was comparable between baseline and follow-up. In the other 5 studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was significantly higher at follow-up. Among the studies that used titanium implants as controls, 2 studies showed significantly higher CBL around zirconia implants, and in 1 study, the CBL around zirconia and titanium implants was comparable. The reported implant survival rates for zirconia implants ranged between 67.6% and 100%. Eleven studies selectively reported the periimplant inflammatory parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the variations in study design and methodology, it was difficult to reach a consensus regarding the efficacy of zirconia implants in maintaining crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 20 IFPP (mean age 47.0; SD 12.9 years) and 28 ISOD (mean age 61.5; SD 9.1 years) patients received 2 mandibular implants. Metal ceramic nonsplinted fixed prostheses were provided in IFPP group, while in ISOD group, the mandibular overdentures were retained by nonsplinted attachments. Patients rated their oral health-related quality of life using OHIP-14 Malaysian version at baseline (T0), 2-3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) postimplant treatment. Mean OHIP-14 for total and domain scores between groups and intervals was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for the comparison of mean score change and effect size, while the association between pre- and post-treatment scores was determined using multivariate linear regression modelling.
RESULTS: The total OHIP and domain scores before implant treatment were significantly higher (lower OHRQoL) in IFPP than in ISOD groups, except for physical pain where this domain showed similar impact in both groups. Postimplant scores between groups at T1 and T2 showed no significant difference. The mean score changes at T0-T1 and T0-T2 for total OHIP-14 and domains were significantly greater in IFPP except in the domains of physical pain and disability which showed no difference. Large effect size (ES) was observed for total OHIP-14 in IFPP while moderate in ISOD. Improved OHRQoL was dependent on the treatment group and pretreatment score.
CONCLUSION: Improvement in OHRQoL occurred following both mandibular implant-supported overdentures and implant fixed partial prostheses.
METHODS: Subjects with a history of periodontitis (test) and periodontally healthy subjects (control) received one of two types of dental implants with different surface characteristics: sandblasted acid-etched (SLA) or precision dimension laser-treated (PDL). Periodontal clinical measurements were collected at baseline (V1), 3 months after implant placement (V4), at zirconia crown placement (V6) and 3 months after zirconia crown placement (V8). Supragingival bacterial microbiota was studied using Illumina MiSeq sequencing.
RESULTS: Supragingival microbial community on SLA implants in test group significantly differed to control group at V8 (p 0.05). Co-occurrence network in test group of SLA implants and the adjacent tooth at V8 showed increased disease-associated bacteria and reduced health-associated bacteria. Health-associated bacteria were dominant in control group of SLA implants at V8.
CONCLUSION: The surface characteristics and prosthetic components of dental implants may be important risk factors in patients with a history of periodontitis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dysbiosis of supragingival microbiome may predispose dental implants to peri-implant diseases. Thus, a strict supportive periodontal care plan is imperative to prevent early onset of biological complications.