Influence of Abutment Design on Stiffness, Strength, and Failure of Implant-Supported Monolithic Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC) Crowns

BACKGROUND Recent technical development allows the digital manufacturing of monolithic reconstructions with high-performance materials. For implant-supported crowns, the fixation requires an abutment design onto which the reconstruction can be bonded. PURPOSE The aim of this laboratory investigation was to analyze stiffness, strength, and failure modes of implant-supported, computer-assisted design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-generated resin nano ceramic (RNC) crowns bonded to three different titanium abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighteen monolithic RNC crowns were produced and loaded in a universal testing machine under quasi-static condition according to DIN ISO 14801. With regard to the type of titanium abutment, three groups were defined: (1) prefabricated cementable standard; (2) CAD/CAM-constructed individualized; and (3) novel prefabricated bonding base. Stiffness and strength were measured and analyzed statistically with Wilcoxon rank sum test. Sections of the specimens were examined microscopically. RESULTS Stiffness demonstrated high stability for all specimens loaded in the physiological loading range with means and standard deviations of 1,579 ± 120 N/mm (group A), 1,733 ± 89 N/mm (group B), and 1,704 ± 162 N/mm (group C). Mean strength of the novel prefabricated bonding base (group C) was 17% lower than of the two other groups. Plastic deformations were detectable for all implant-abutment crown connections. CONCLUSIONS Monolithic implant crowns made of RNC seem to represent a feasible and stable prosthetic construction under laboratory testing conditions with strength higher than the average occlusal force, independent of the different abutment designs used in this investigation.

Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial

PURPOSE To compare time-efficiency in the production of implant crowns using a digital workflow versus the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective clinical study used a crossover design that included 20 study participants receiving single-tooth replacements in posterior sites. Each patient received a customized titanium abutment plus a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) zirconia suprastructure (for those in the test group, using digital workflow) and a standardized titanium abutment plus a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown (for those in the control group, using a conventional pathway). The start of the implant prosthetic treatment was established as the baseline. Time-efficiency analysis was defined as the primary outcome, and was measured for every single clinical and laboratory work step in minutes. Statistical analysis was calculated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS All crowns could be provided within two clinical appointments, independent of the manufacturing process. The mean total production time, as the sum of clinical plus laboratory work steps, was significantly different. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time was 185.4 ± 17.9 minutes for the digital workflow process and 223.0 ± 26.2 minutes for the conventional pathway (P = .0001). Therefore, digital processing for overall treatment was 16% faster. Detailed analysis for the clinical treatment revealed a significantly reduced mean ± SD chair time of 27.3 ± 3.4 minutes for the test group compared with 33.2 ± 4.9 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). Similar results were found for the mean laboratory work time, with a significant decrease of 158.1 ± 17.2 minutes for the test group vs 189.8 ± 25.3 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). CONCLUSION Only a few studies have investigated efficiency parameters of digital workflows compared with conventional pathways in implant dental medicine. This investigation shows that the digital workflow seems to be more time-efficient than the established conventional production pathway for fixed implant-supported crowns. Both clinical chair time and laboratory manufacturing steps could be effectively shortened with the digital process of intraoral scanning plus CAD/CAM technology.