IADR Abstract Archives
Cyclic Fatigue of CAD/CAM Screw Retained Implant Crowns
Objectives: The aim of this in-vitro study is to assess the effect of cyclic loading fatigue on failure load of CAD/CAM screw-retained implant crowns with screw access holes sealed with composite or Enamic inlay.
Methods: Ivoclar e.max and Vita Enamic CAD/CAM screw-retained implant molar crowns (n=44 for each material) and Enamic inlays (n=44) were designed using Sirona in-Lab software system (SW4 4.2.5), and milled using CEREC in-Lab MC XL. All the prepared e.max and Enamic crowns were cemented to Sirona TiBase (B O 4.1 L) using Ivoclar hybrid multilink cement. The access holes were sealed either by using composite or Enamic inlay (n=22 for each group). After cementation, twelve specimens from each group were subjected to a static load to failure test in a universal mechanical testing machine (Instron 5566A). The mean failure load for each group was calculated. The other 10 specimens for each group were subjected to cyclic loading fatigue under 40% of static failure load for 100,000 cycles. After cyclic loading, the surviving specimens were tested for static failure load. The comparison of failure load between tested groups was analyzed by one-way ANOVA using JMP Pro 13 with α=0.05.
Results: Failure load of the different groups is shown in Table 1.
Conclusions: No significant difference of failure load was found between groups sealed by composite and Enamic inlay. No significant difference of failure load was found between static and fatigued groups. e.max and Enamic crowns sealed with composite resin were not significantly different.
Methods: Ivoclar e.max and Vita Enamic CAD/CAM screw-retained implant molar crowns (n=44 for each material) and Enamic inlays (n=44) were designed using Sirona in-Lab software system (SW4 4.2.5), and milled using CEREC in-Lab MC XL. All the prepared e.max and Enamic crowns were cemented to Sirona TiBase (B O 4.1 L) using Ivoclar hybrid multilink cement. The access holes were sealed either by using composite or Enamic inlay (n=22 for each group). After cementation, twelve specimens from each group were subjected to a static load to failure test in a universal mechanical testing machine (Instron 5566A). The mean failure load for each group was calculated. The other 10 specimens for each group were subjected to cyclic loading fatigue under 40% of static failure load for 100,000 cycles. After cyclic loading, the surviving specimens were tested for static failure load. The comparison of failure load between tested groups was analyzed by one-way ANOVA using JMP Pro 13 with α=0.05.
Results: Failure load of the different groups is shown in Table 1.
Conclusions: No significant difference of failure load was found between groups sealed by composite and Enamic inlay. No significant difference of failure load was found between static and fatigued groups. e.max and Enamic crowns sealed with composite resin were not significantly different.