We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 2     21. Mar. 2014
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 2  (21.03.2014)

Page 364-373, doi:10.11607/jomi.2836, PubMed:24683562

Fatigue Resistance and Failure Mode of Adhesively Restored Custom Metal-Composite Resin Premolar Implant Abutments
Boff, Luís Leonildo / Oderich, Elisa / Cardoso, Antônio Carlos / Magne, Pascal
Purpose: To evaluate the fatigue resistance and failure mode of composite resin and porcelain onlays and crowns bonded to premolar custom metal-composite resin premolar implant abutments.
Materials and Methods: Sixty composite resin mesostructures were fabricated with computer assistance with two preparation designs (crown vs onlay) and bonded to a metal implant abutment. Following insertion into an implant with a tapered abutment interface (Titamax CM), each metal-composite resin abutment was restored with either composite resin (Paradigm MZ100) or ceramic (Paradigm C) (n = 15) and attached with adhesive resin (Optibond FL) and a preheated light-curing composite resin (Filtek Z100). Cyclic isometric chewing (5 Hz) was then simulated, starting with 5,000 cycles at a load of 50 N, followed by stages of 200, 400, 600, 800, 1,000, 1,200, and 1,400 N (25,000 cycles each). Samples were loaded until fracture or to a maximum of 180,000 cycles. The four groups were compared using life table survival analysis (log-rank test). Previously published data using zirconia abutments of the same design were included for comparison.
Results: Paradigm C and MZ100 specimens fractured at average loads of 1,133 N and 1,266 N, respectively. Survival rates ranged from 20% to 33.3% (ceramic crowns and onlays) to 60% (composite resin crowns and onlays) and were significantly different (pooled data for restorative material). There were no restoration failures, but there were adhesive failures at the connection between the abutment and the mesostructure. The survival of the metal-composite resin premolar abutments was inferior to that of identical zirconia abutments from a previous study (pooled data for abutment material).
Conclusions: Composite resin onlays/ crowns bonded to metal-composite resin premolar implant abutments presented higher survival rates than comparable ceramic onlays/crowns. Zirconia abutments outperformed the metal-composite resin premolar abutments.

Keywords: adhesion, ceramic, composite resin, computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture, fatigue resistance, implant abutment, premolar