Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Load-bearing capacity of CAD/CAM milled polymeric three-unit fixed dental prostheses: Effect of aging regimens

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study tested the fracture load of milled and conventionally fabricated polymeric and glass-ceramic three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after aging.

Materials and methods

FDPs were fabricated (N = 1,050) from four computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) resins: (1) AT (artBlock Temp); (2) TC (Telio CAD); (3) ZP (ZENO PMMA); (4) CT (CAD-Temp); two conventionally fabricated resins, (5) IES (integral esthetic press), (6) CMK (CronMix K), and a glass-ceramic (control) (7) PG (IMAGINE PressX). Specimens of each group were tested immediately after fabrication (n = 15 per material). Seventy-five FDPs per material type were stored in artificial saliva (37°C) and 15 of them were randomly selected after aging (1, 7, 28, 90, and 180 days) for fracture load measurement. The remaining specimens (n = 60 per material) were subjected to chewing simulation (×120.000–1.200.000, 49 N, 5°C/50°C). The data were analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé test.

Results

The interactions between FDP materials and aging time in both storage media showed a significant impact on the results (p < 0.001). Among saliva storage groups, TC and ZP showed the highest, and PG the lowest fracture load (p < 0.05). AT and CT were not affected from chewing simulation. TC, ZP, and AT presented the highest in ascending order (p < 0.05), PG and CMK showed the lowest fracture load after chewing simulation (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Aging did not influence the fracture load of FDPs made of CAD/CAM resins. FDPs made of glass–ceramic showed significantly lower fracture load than those of all resin FDPs. Clinical relevance: Considering fracture load measurements, CAD/CAM resins tested could be alternative materials to glass–ceramic for FDP construction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alt V, Hannig M, Wostmann B, Balkenhol M (2011) Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 27:339–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goncu Basaran E, Ayna E, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2011) Load-bearing capacity of handmade and computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing-fabricated three-unit fixed dental prostheses of particulate filler composite. Acta Odontol Scand 69:144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Banerjee R, Banerjee S, Prabhudesai PS, Bhide SV (2010) Influence of the processing technique on the flexural fatigue strength of denture base resins: an in vitro investigation. Indian J Dent Res 21:391–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rocca GT, Bonnafous F, Rizcalla N, Krejci I (2010) A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD/CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 104:273–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin CL, Chang YH, Liu PR (2008) Multi-factorial analysis of a cusp-replacing adhesive premolar restoration: a finite element study. J Dent 36:194–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krämer N, Kunzelmann KH, Taschner M, Mehl A, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2006) Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res 85:1097–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giordano R (2006) Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-prodeced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 137:14S–21S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chaysuwan D, Sirinukunwattana K, Kanchanatawewat K, Heness G, Yamashita K (2011) Machinable glass-ceramics forming as a restorative dental material. Dent Mater J 30:358–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Luthy H, Filser F, Loeffel O, Schumacher M, Gauckler LJ, Hammerle CH (2005) Strength and reliability of four-unit all-ceramic posterior bridges. Dent Mater 21:930–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Scharnagl P, Handel G, Kolbeck C (2011) Influence of resilient support of abutment teeth on fracture resistance of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 24:465–468

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sterzenbach G, Kalberlah S, Beuer F, Frankenberger R, Naumann M (2011) In-vitro simulation of tooth mobility for static and dynamic load tests: a pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand 69:316–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rechenberg DK, Göhring TN, Attin T (2010) Influence of different curing approaches on marginal adaptation of ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 12:189–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Poticny DJ, Klim J (2010) CAD/CAM in-office technology: innovations after 25 years for predictable, esthetic outcomes. J Am Dent Assoc 141:5S–9S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balkenhol M, Kohler H, Orbach K, Wostmann B (2009) Fracture toughness of cross-linked and non-cross-linked temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials. Dent Mater 25:917–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burtscher P (1993) Stability of radicals in cured composite materials. Dent Mater 9:218–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Manhart J, Schmidt M, Chen HY, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2001) Marginal quality of tooth-colored restorations in class II cavities after artificial aging. Oper Dent 26:357–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G (2008) Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent 36:1048–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosentritt M, Behr M, van der Zel J, Feilzer AJ (2009) Approach for valuating the influence of laboratory simulation. Dent Mater 25:348–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fischer H, Weber M, Eck M, Erdrich A, Marx R (2004) Finite element and experimental analyses of polymer-based dental bridges reinforced by ceramic bars. J Biomech 37:289–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahmood DJ, Linderoth EH, Vult von Steyern P (2011) The influence of support properties and complexity on fracture strength and fracture mode of all-ceramic fixed dental protheses. Acta Odontol Scand 69:229–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG (1993) The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont 6:462–467

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Keulemans F, Lassila LV, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ (2009) The influence of framework design on the load-bearing capacity of laboratory-made inlay-retained fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses. J Biomech 42:844–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pfeiffer P, Grube L (2006) Effect of pontic height on the fracture strength of reinforced interim fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 22:1093–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Waltimo A, Kononen M (1995) Maximal force and its association with signs and symptoms of craniomandibular disorders in young Finnish non-patients. Acta Ordontol Scand 53:254–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K (2005) The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1714–1723

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lehmann F, Spiegl K, Eickemeyer G, Rammelsberg P (2009) Adhesively luted, metal-free composite crowns after five years. J Adhes Dent 11:493–498

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vanoorbeek S, Vandamme K, Lijnen I, Naert I (2010) Computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured composite resin versus ceramic single-tooth restorations: a 3-year clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 23:223–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Merz Dental, Vita Zahnfabrik, Ivoclar Vivadent, and Wieland Dental for the financial and material support.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Fixed and Removal Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, Zurich, 8032, Switzerland

    Bogna Stawarczyk, Albert Trottmann, Mutlu Özcan & Christoph H. F. Hämmerle

  2. Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, Zurich, 8032, Switzerland

    Andreas Ender

  3. Institute of Dental Materials and Technology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Hebelstrasse 3, Basel, 4056, Switzerland

    Jens Fischer

Authors
  1. Bogna Stawarczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Ender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert Trottmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mutlu Özcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jens Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bogna Stawarczyk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stawarczyk, B., Ender, A., Trottmann, A. et al. Load-bearing capacity of CAD/CAM milled polymeric three-unit fixed dental prostheses: Effect of aging regimens. Clin Oral Invest 16, 1669–1677 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0670-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0670-4

Keywords