Fracture load of different crown systems on zirconia implant abutments

Objectives rpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture load of single zirconia abutment restorations using different veneering techniques and materials. als and methods utment restorations were divided into 6 groups with 20 samples each: test abutments (control group A), lithium disilicate ceramic crowns bonded on incisor abutments (group B), leucite ceramic crowns bonded on incisor abutments (group C), premolar abutments directly veneered with a fluor apatite ceramic (group D (layered) and group E (pressed)) and premolar abutments bonded with lithium disilicate ceramic crowns (group F). The fracture load of the restorations was evaluated using a universal testing machine. Half of each group was artificially aged (chewing simulation and thermocycling) before evaluating the fracture load with the exception of the test abutments. s acture load of the test abutments was 705 ± 43 N. Incisor abutments bonded with lithium disilicate or leucite ceramic crowns (groups B and C) showed fracture loads of about 580 N. Premolar restorations directly veneered with fluor apatite ceramic (groups D and E) showed fracture loads of about 850 N. Premolar restorations bonded with lithium disilicate ceramic crowns (group F) showed fracture loads of about 1850 N. The artificial ageing showed no significant influence on the strength of the examined restorations. icance ramic crowns made of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, adhesively bonded to premolar abutments showed the highest fracture loads in this study. However, all tested groups can withstand physiological bite forces.