Spannungsentwicklung keramisch verblendeter Implantatbrücken

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
• 2 Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 216-222
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 6 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;  6 448-455
• 7 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;  7 468-475
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 19 Hsu CC, Millstein PL, Stein RS. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques.  J Prosthet Dent. 1993;  69 588-493
• 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
• 21 Johansson LA, Ekfeldt A. Implant-supported fixed partial prostheses: A retrospective study.  Int J Prosthodont. 2003;  16 172-176
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 26 Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Approaches for intraoral repair of ceramic restorations.  Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000;  21 635-639
• 27 Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;  12 371-375
• 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
• 29 Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.  Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;  7 15-18
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 34 Spector MR, Donovan TE, Nicholls JL. An evaluation of impression techniques for osseointegrated implants.  J Prosthet Dent. 1990;  63 444-447
• 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
• 36 Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: Current perspective and future directions.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 66-75
• 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
• 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
• 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

Korrespondenzadresse