In vitro evaluation of material dependent force damping behavior of implant-supported restorations using different CAD-CAM materials and luting conditions

Abstract

Statement of problem: Although force-damping behavior that matches natural teeth may be unobtainable, an optimal combination of crown material and luting agent might have a beneficial effect on the force absorption capacity of implant-supported restorations. However, the force-absorbing behavior of various restorative materials has not yet been satisfactorily investigated.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the material dependent force-damping behavior of implant-supported crowns fabricated from different computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials luted to implant abutments under different conditions.

Material and methods: Titanium inserts (N=84) were screwed to implant analogs, scanned to design zirconia abutments, and divided into 4 groups to receive CAD-CAM fabricated crowns in 4 materials: zirconia, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polymer-infiltrated ceramics (VITA ENAMIC), and lithium disilicate (e.max). The crowns were subdivided as per the luting agent: none, interim cement, and adhesive resin cement. Measurements were performed by loading specimens in a universal testing machine with an increasing force and measuring the resulting force with a digital forcemeter, followed by image processing and data acquisition. Two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess all interactions with multiple pairwise comparisons (α=.05).

Results: The curve progression of the applied and resulting forces varied significantly among the investigated materials, resulting in differently inclined slopes for each material (P<.001). With no cementation, the mean slope values of the resulting force curves ranged from 77.5 ±0.03 degrees for zirconia, followed by 71.8 ±0.03 degrees for lithium disilicate, 56.2 ±0.1 degrees for polymer-infiltrated ceramics, and 51.1 ±0.01 degrees for polyetheretherketone. With interim cementation, the mean slope values ranged from 75.4 ±0.01 degrees for zirconia, followed by 70.05 ±0.02 degrees for lithium disilicate, 56.1 ±0.02 degrees for polymer-infiltrated ceramics, and 52.2 ±0.1 degrees for polyetheretherketone. As with adhesive cementation, curve slopes ranged from 73.2 ±0.02 degrees for zirconia, followed by 70.5 ±0.2 degrees for lithium disilicate, 55.9 ±0.04 degrees for polymer-infiltrated ceramics, and 52.3 ±0.1 degrees for polyetheretherketone. Slope loss was significant after the cementation of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns but less significant for polymer-infiltrated ceramics and polyetheretherketone.

Conclusions: Force damping is generally material dependent, yet implant-supported crowns fabricated from resilient materials such as polymer-infiltrated ceramics and PEEK show better force absorption than rigid materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics. Furthermore, cementation of rigid materials significantly increased slope loss, indicating enhancement in their force-damping behavior, whereas less-rigid materials benefit less from cementation. Further studies are essential to investigate the effect of prosthetic materials on the stress distribution to the peri-implant bone in the crown-abutment-implant complex.