We have located links that may give you full text access.
Biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia frameworks for implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis.
Clinical Implant Dentistry and related Research 2017 August 3
BACKGROUND: The biomechanical behavior of implant-supported titanium and zirconia full-arch fixed dental prosthesis (FAFDP) frameworks require further investigation.
PURPOSE: Strains transferred by implant-supported titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) FAFDP frameworks were analyzed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary 14-unit FAFDPs supported by 6 implants and 12-unit FAFDPs supported by 4 implants were tested. One-piece frameworks were fabricated by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. Four groups were divided (n = 3): G1, Ti-6 implants; G2, Zr-6 implants; G3, Ti-4 implants; G4, Zr-4 implants. A 250 N single-point load was applied on the second premolar. A three-dimensional digital image correlation system recorded framework and maxilla model surface deformation.
RESULTS: The following strains (μS) averaged over the length of the second premolar were calculated: frameworks, G1 (321.82 ± 111.29), G2 (638.87 ± 108.64), G3 (377.77 ± 28.64), G4 (434.18 ± 132.21); model surface, G1 (473.99 ± 48.69), G2 (653.93 ± 45.26), G3 (1082.50 ± 71.14), G4 (1218.26 ± 230.37). Zirconia frameworks supported by 6 implants (G2) presented higher surface strains (P < .05). FAFDPs with titanium frameworks transferred significantly lower strains to the supporting maxilla when 6 implants were used (G1) (P < .05). Both framework materials transferred similar strains when supported by 4 implants (G3 and G4) (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia frameworks supported by 6 implants showed higher strains. FAFDPs supported by 6 implants transferred less strains to the supporting maxilla, irrespective of framework material.
PURPOSE: Strains transferred by implant-supported titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) FAFDP frameworks were analyzed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary 14-unit FAFDPs supported by 6 implants and 12-unit FAFDPs supported by 4 implants were tested. One-piece frameworks were fabricated by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. Four groups were divided (n = 3): G1, Ti-6 implants; G2, Zr-6 implants; G3, Ti-4 implants; G4, Zr-4 implants. A 250 N single-point load was applied on the second premolar. A three-dimensional digital image correlation system recorded framework and maxilla model surface deformation.
RESULTS: The following strains (μS) averaged over the length of the second premolar were calculated: frameworks, G1 (321.82 ± 111.29), G2 (638.87 ± 108.64), G3 (377.77 ± 28.64), G4 (434.18 ± 132.21); model surface, G1 (473.99 ± 48.69), G2 (653.93 ± 45.26), G3 (1082.50 ± 71.14), G4 (1218.26 ± 230.37). Zirconia frameworks supported by 6 implants (G2) presented higher surface strains (P < .05). FAFDPs with titanium frameworks transferred significantly lower strains to the supporting maxilla when 6 implants were used (G1) (P < .05). Both framework materials transferred similar strains when supported by 4 implants (G3 and G4) (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia frameworks supported by 6 implants showed higher strains. FAFDPs supported by 6 implants transferred less strains to the supporting maxilla, irrespective of framework material.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app