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.

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.

Imaging the South Pole-Aitken basin in backscattered neutral hydrogen atoms

The lunar surface is very efficient in reflecting impinging solar wind ions as energetic neutral atoms (ENAs). A global analysis of lunar hydrogen ENAs showed that on average 16% of the solar wind protons are reflected, and that the reflected fraction can range from less than 8% to more than 24%, depending on location. It is established that magnetic anomalies reduce the flux of backscattered hydrogen ENAs by screening-off a fraction of the impinging solar wind. The effects of the surface properties, such as porosity, roughness, chemical composition, and extent of weathering, were not known. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth analysis of ENA observations of the South Pole-Aitken basin to determine which of the surface properties might be responsible for the observed variation in the integral ENA flux. The South Pole-Aitken basin with its highly variable surface properties is an ideal object for such studies. It is very deep, possesses strikingly elevated concentrations in iron and thorium, has a low albedo and coincides with a cluster of strong magnetic anomalies located on the northern rim of the basin. Our analysis shows that whereas, as expected, the magnetic anomalies can account well for the observed ENA depletion at the South Pole-Aitken basin, none of the other surface properties seem to influence the ENA reflection efficiency. Therefore, the integral flux of backscattered hydrogen ENAs is mainly determined by the impinging plasma flux and ENA imaging of backscattered hydrogen captures the electrodynamics of the plasma at the surface. We cannot exclude minor effects by surface features. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.