Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites

Aim of the investigation was to assess the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of veneering ceramics to zirconia. In a shear test, the influences of polishing, sandblasting, and silica-coating of the zirconia surface on bonding were assessed with five different veneering ceramics. In addition the effect of liner application was examined. With one veneering ceramic, the impact of regeneration firing of zirconia was also evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Scheffé's test. Failure in every case occurred in the veneering ceramic adjacent to the interface with a thin layer of ceramic remaining on the zirconia surface, indicating that bond strength was higher than the cohesive strength of the veneering ceramic. Shear strength ranged from 23.5 +/- 3.4 MPa to 33.0 +/- 6.8 MPa without explicit correlation to the respective surface treatment. Regeneration firing significantly decreased the shear strength of both polished and sandblasted surfaces. Findings of this study revealed that bonding between veneering ceramics and zirconia might be based on chemical bonds. On this note, sandblasting was not a necessary surface pretreatment to enhance bond strength and that regeneration firing was not recommended.

Changes in retention force with electroplated copings on conical crowns: a comparison of gold and zirconia primary crowns

The aim of this study was to examine the wear behavior of conical crowns with electroplated gold copings that are used to connect implants and teeth to a removable denture. Gold alloy and zirconium dioxide ceramic crowns were compared.

Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES: To test the survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of customized zirconia and titanium abutments 5 years after crown insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with 40 single implants in maxillary and mandibular canine and posterior regions were included. The implant sites were randomly assigned to zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns or titanium abutments supporting metal-ceramic crowns. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline, and at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months of follow-up. The abutments and reconstructions were examined for technical and/or biological complications. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) were assessed at abutments (test) and analogous contralateral teeth (control). Radiographs of the implants revealed the bone level (BL) on mesial (mBL) and distal sides (dBL). Data were statistically analyzed with nonparametric mixed models provided by Brunner and Langer and STATA (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 18 zirconia and 10 titanium abutments were available at a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 4.5-6.3 years). No abutment fracture or loss of a reconstruction occurred. Hence, the survival rate was 100% for both. Survival of implants supporting zirconia abutments was 88.9% and 90% for implants supporting titanium abutments. Chipping of the veneering ceramic occurred at three metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments. No significant differences were found at the zirconia and titanium abutments for PPD (meanPPD(ZrO2) 3.3 ± 0.6 mm, mPPD(T) (i) 3.6 ± 1.1 mm), PCR (mPCR(Z) (rO) (2) 0.1 ± 0.3, mPCR(T) (i) 0.3 ± 0.2) and BOP (mBOP(Z) (rO) (2) 0.5 ± 0.3, mBOP(T) (i) 0.6 ± 0.3). Moreover, the BL was similar at implants supporting zirconia and titanium abutments (mBL(Z) (rO) (2) 1.8 ± 0.5, dBL(Z) (rO) (2) 2.0 ± 0.8; mBL(T) (i) 2.0 ± 0.8, dBL(T) (i) 1.9 ± 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically relevant differences between the 5-year survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of zirconia and titanium abutments in posterior regions.

[Zirconia and removable partial dentures]

The present paper deals with the double crown technique in removable prosthodontics. New ceramic materials like zirconia are increasingly used in combination with CAD/CAM technologies for framework fabrication of fixed prosthesis, tooth- or implant-supported. However, zirconia is also a newly accepted material in removable prosthodontics. It replaces gold alloys for the fabrication of primary telescopic crowns. The Galvanoforming technology is preferably used to fabricate the secondary crowns. The combination of both techniques and materials results in a prosthetic reconstruction of high quality, optimum fit and good biocompatibility.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs).

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs.

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.

Peri-implant soft tissue colour around titanium and zirconia abutments: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVES To objectively determine the difference in colour between the peri-implant soft tissue at titanium and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven patients, each with two contralaterally inserted osteointegrated dental implants, were included in this study. The implants were restored either with titanium abutments and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, or with zirconia abutments and ceramic crowns. Prior and after crown cementation, multi-spectral images of the peri-implant soft tissues and the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth were taken with a colorimeter. The colour parameters L*, a*, b*, c* and the colour differences ΔE were calculated. Descriptive statistics, including non-parametric tests and correlation coefficients, were used for statistical analyses of the data. RESULTS Compared to the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth, the peri-implant soft tissue around titanium and zirconia (test group), showed distinguishable ΔE both before and after crown cementation. Colour differences around titanium were statistically significant different (P = 0.01) only at 1 mm prior to crown cementation compared to zirconia. Compared to the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth, statistically significant (P < 0.01) differences were found for all colour parameter, either before or after crown cementation for both abutments; more significant differences were registered for titanium abutments. Tissue thickness correlated positively with c*-values for titanium at 1 mm and 2 mm from the gingival margin. CONCLUSIONS Within their limits, the present data indicate that: (i) The peri-implant soft tissue around titanium and zirconia showed colour differences when compared to the soft tissue around natural teeth, and (ii) the peri-implant soft tissue around zirconia demonstrated a better colour match to the soft tissue at natural teeth than titanium.

Management of a complication with a fractured zirconia implant abutment in the esthetic zone

Technical complications in implant prosthetic cases represent a major challenge in dentistry. This case report describes minimally invasive management to recover an implant with a fractured remnant of a zirconia abutment, including provisional rehabilitation during a sequential treatment protocol in the esthetic zone. A patient was treated with a screw-retained one-piece implant-supported reconstruction made of a customized zirconia abutment with direct ceramic veneering in the maxillary right central incisor position. During the prosthetic try-in, a fracture in the apical portion of the abutment was evident. The first rescue attempt led to fracture of the retrieval instrument. Immediately, an individualized wired construction was applied to bond the existing fractured reconstruction to the neighboring teeth to maintain the peri-implant mucosal architecture. Because the implant screw canal was blocked, a customized round bur had to be manufactured and was placed in the implant axis with a specific bracket tool from the service set to protect the interior implant threads. Then, the drills of the service set were guided by the newly created access to remove the fractured remnants. The implant screw was retapped and the area rinsed with chlorhexidine solution. All remnants were removed without the need for surgical intervention. Neither the implant connection nor the bone-to-implant interface was damaged. The stepwise treatment approach with the customized round bur combined with the system-specific drills of the service set saved the blocked implant so that the patient could be successfully rehabilitated with a new implant reconstruction.

Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations

This in vitro study evaluated the performance of three ceramic and two commonly used polishing methods on two CAD/CAM ceramics. Surface roughness and quality were compared. A glazed group (GLGR) of each ceramic material served as reference. One-hundred and twenty specimens of VITABLOCS Mark II (VITA) and 120 specimens of IPS Empress CAD (IPS) were roughened in a standardized manner. Twenty VITA and 20 IPS specimens were glazed (VITA Akzent Glaze/Empress Universal Glaze). Five polishing methods were investigated (n=20/group): 1) EVE Diacera W11DC-Set (EVE), 2) JOTA 9812-Set (JOTA), 3) OptraFine-System (OFI), 4) Sof-Lex 2382 discs (SOF) and 5) Brownie/Greenie/Occlubrush (BGO). Polishing quality was measured with a surface roughness meter (Ra and Rz values). The significance level was set at alpha=0.05. Kruskal Wallis tests and pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment were used. Qualitative surface evaluation of representative specimens was done with SEM. On VITA ceramics, SOF produced lower Ra (p<0.00001) but higher Rz values than GLGR (p=0.003); EVE, JOTA, OFI and BGO yielded significantly higher Ra and Rz values than GLGR. On IPS ceramics, SOF and JOTA exhibited lower Ra values than GLGR (p<0.0001). Equivalent Ra but significantly higher Rz values occurred between GLGR and EVE, OFI or BGO. VITA and IPS exhibited the smoothest surfaces when polished with SOF. Nevertheless, ceramic polishing systems are still of interest to clinicians using CAD/CAM, as these methods are universally applicable and showed an increased durability compared to the investigated silicon polishers.

Push-out bond strength of CAD/CAM-ceramic luted to dentin with self-adhesive resin cements

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the initial and the artificially aged push-out bond strength between ceramic and dentin produced by one of five resin cements. METHODS: Two-hundred direct ceramic restorations (IPS Empress CAD) were luted to standardized Class I cavities in extracted human molars using one of four self-adhesive cements (SpeedCEM, RelyX Unicem Aplicap, SmartCem2 and iCEM) or a reference etch-and-rinse resin cement (Syntac/Variolink II) (n=40/cement). Push-out bond strength (PBS) was measured (1) after 24h water storage (non-aged group; n=20/cement) or (2) after artificial ageing with 5000 thermal cycles followed by 6 months humid storage (aged group; n=20/cement). Nonparametrical ANOVA and pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment were applied for statistical analysis. The significance level was set at alpha=0.05. In addition, failure mode and fracture pattern were analyzed by stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Whereas no statistically significant effect of storage condition was found (p=0.441), there was a significant effect of resin cement (p<0.0001): RelyX Unicem showed significantly higher PBS than the other cements. Syntac/Variolink II showed significantly higher PBS than SmartCEM2 (p<0.001). No significant differences were found between SpeedCEM, SmartCem2, and iCEM. The predominant failure mode was adhesive failure of cements at the dentin interface except for RelyX Unicem which in most cases showed cohesive failure in ceramic. SIGNIFICANCE: The resin cements showed marked differences in push-out bond strength when used for luting ceramic restorations to dentin. Variolink II with the etch-and-rinse adhesive Syntac did not perform better than three of the four self-adhesive resin cements tested.

Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.