These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments.
    Author: Att W, Hoischen T, Gerds T, Strub JR.
    Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2008 Dec; 10(4):218-25. PubMed ID: 18241217.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Studies focusing on the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments are in short supply. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the marginal accuracy of all-ceramic crowns on different implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six standardized maxillary central incisor crowns (48 alumina and 48 zirconia) were fabricated for each of the six test groups (n = 16) (Ti1, titanium abutments-alumina crowns; Ti2, titanium abutments-zirconia crowns; Al1, alumina abutments-alumina crowns; Al2, alumina abutments-zirconia crowns; Zr1, zirconia abutments-alumina crowns; Zr2, zirconia abutments-zirconia crowns). The crowns were adhesively luted using a resin luting agent. The marginal gaps were examined on epoxy replicas before and after luting as well as after masticatory simulation at 200x magnification. RESULTS: The geometrical mean (95% confidence limits) marginal gap values before cementation, after cementation, and after masticatory simulation were group Ti1: 39(37-42), 57(53-62), and 49(46-53); group Ti2: 43(40-47), 71(67-76), and 64(59-69); group Al1: 57(54-61), 87(85-90), and 67(65-69); group Al2: 66(63-69), 96(90-101), and 75(72-78); group Zr1: 54(51-57), 79(76-82), and 65(63-67); and group Zr2: 64(60-68), 85(80-91), and 75(70-81). The comparison between non-cemented and cemented stages in each group demonstrated a significant increase in the marginal gap values after cementation in all groups (p < .001), while the comparison between cemented and aged stages in each group showed a significant decrease in the marginal gap values in groups Al1, Al2, and Zr1 (p < .0001). This reduction was not significant for groups Ti1, Ti2, and Zr2 (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The marginal accuracy of all tested restorations meets the requirements for clinical acceptance.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]