Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2005; 114(3): 68-78
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-865275
Originalarbeit
Implantologie
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Spannungsentwicklung keramisch verblendeter Implantatbrücken

Strain Development of Ceramic Veneered Implant FPDsM. Karl1 , S. Rösch1 , J. J. Linke1 , F. Graef2 , M. G. Wichmann1 , S. M. Heckmann1
  • 1Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik
  • 2Institut für Angewandte Mathematik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 March 2005 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel vorliegender In-vitro-Studie war, den Einfluss der keramischen Verblendung auf die Spannungsentwicklung 3-gliedriger Implantatbrücken zu bestimmen. 5 Brückengruppen wurden vor und nach Verblendung mittels Dehnungsmessstreifen untersucht. Die Verblendung führte zum Anstieg der Spannungsentwicklung bei allen konventionellen Brücken (p < 0,1). Die niedrigsten Spannungen wurden bei verschraubten Brücken gemessen, die auf dem Modell mit vorgefertigten Goldzylindern verklebt wurden.

Summary

The aim of the in vitro study presented was to quantify the influence of ceramic veneering upon strain development of 3-unit implant FPDs. To this end, 5 different FPD-groups were investigated before and after ceramic veneering using strain gauge technique. Ceramic veneering caused an increase in strain development for all conventional bridge types investigated (p < 0.1). The lowest strains were found in screw retained FPDs bonded to prefabricated gold cylinders on the in vitro model.

Schlüsselwörter

Passive Fit - Implantat-brücke - Keramikverblendung - Dehnungsmessstreifen

Key Words

Passive Fit - Implant Supported FPD - Ceramic Veneering - Strain Gauge

Literatur

  • 1 Aristidis GA, Dimitra B. Five-year clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers.  Quintessence Int. 2002;  33 185-189
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 216-222
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I. et al. . Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: Effect of splinting material.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 885-888
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Brägger U, Aeschlimann S, Burgin W. et al. . Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 2001;  12 26-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Burawi G, Houston F, Byrne D. et al. . A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the Bone-Lock implant system.  J Prosthet Dent. 1997;  77 68-75
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;  6 448-455
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;  7 468-475
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Carr AB, Brunski JB, Hurley E. Effects of fabrication, finishing and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional „gold” and plastic cylinders.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 589-598
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF. et al. . Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: Which is better?.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 137-141
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Cheshire PD, Hobkirk JA. An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures.  J Oral Rehabil. 1996;  23 782-789
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Clelland NL, Papazoglou E, Carr AB. et al. . Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant among implant overdenture bars with various levels of misfit.  J Prosthodont. 1995;  4 243-250
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Clelland NL, Carr AB, Gilat A. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant between as-cast and postsoldered implant frameworks for a five implant-supported fixed prosthesis.  J Prosthodont. 1996;  5 193-200
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Clelland NL, van Putten MC. Comparison of strains produced in a bone simulant between conventional cast and resin-luted implant frameworks.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;  12 793-799
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H. et al. . Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 239-246
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T. et al. . Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;  10 529-536
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.  J Prosthet Dent. 1997;  77 28-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG. et al. . Cement fixation and screw retention: Parameters of passive fit. An in vitro-study of 3-unit implant supported FPDs.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 2004;  15 466-473
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH. et al. . Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  83 555-561
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hsu CC, Millstein PL, Stein RS. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques.  J Prosthet Dent. 1993;  69 588-493
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Inturregui JA, Aquilino SA, Ryther JS. et al. . Evaluation of three impression techniques for osseointegrated oral implants.  J Prosthet Dent. 1993;  69 503-509
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Johansson LA, Ekfeldt A. Implant-supported fixed partial prostheses: A retrospective study.  Int J Prosthodont. 2003;  16 172-176
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD. et al. . In vitro study on passive fit in implant supported five-unit fixed partial dentures.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;  19 30-37
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Karl M, Rösch S, Graef F. et al. .Is ceramic veneering a major determinant of implant loading?. Implant Dent (in Druck)
  • 24 Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF. et al. . Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains.  J Biomech. 1994;  27 1127-1136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Keith SE, Miller BH, Woody RD. et al. . Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 369-378
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Approaches for intraoral repair of ceramic restorations.  Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000;  21 635-639
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;  12 371-375
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;  18 719-728
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.  Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;  7 15-18
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Napankangas R, Salonen-Kemppi MA, Raustia AM. Longevity of fixed metal ceramic bridge prostheses: A clinical follow-up study.  J Oral Rehabil. 2002;  29 140-145
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Ozcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs.  Int J Prosthodont. 2002;  15 299-302
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Pietrabissa R, Gionso L, Quaglini V. et al. . An in vitro study on compensation of mismatch of screw versus cement-retained implant supported fixed prostheses.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 2000;  1 448-457
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Singer A, Serfaty V. Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: A 6-month to 3-year follow-up.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 645-649
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Spector MR, Donovan TE, Nicholls JL. An evaluation of impression techniques for osseointegrated implants.  J Prosthet Dent. 1990;  63 444-447
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Tan KB. The clinical significance of distortion in implant prosthodontics: Is there such a thing as passive fit?.  Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1995;  24 138-157
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: Current perspective and future directions.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 66-75
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  83 562-566
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs: Part 2. Modes of failure and influence of various clinical characteristics.  Int J Prosthodont. 2003;  16 177-182
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y. et al. . Analyses of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 209-218
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

PD Dr. Dr. S. M. Heckmann

Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik

Glückstr. 11, 91054 Erlangen

Phone: 09131/8535807

Fax: 09131/8536781

Email: siegfried.heckmann@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de