Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are implants more reliable than severely compromised endodontically treated teeth as abutments for zirconia-based FPDs?

In vitro results of long-term preclinical load simulation

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

Abstract

Objectives

The aim was to study the impact of the defect size of endodontically treated incisors compared to dental implants as abutments on the survival of zirconia two-unit anterior cantilever-fixed partial dentures (2U-FPDs) during 10-year simulation.

Materials and methods

Human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and divided into three groups (n = 24): I, access cavities rebuilt with composite core; II, teeth decoronated and restored with composite; and III as II supported by fiber posts. In group IV, implants with individual zirconia abutments were used. Specimens were restored with zirconia 2U-FPDs and exposed to two sequences of thermal cycling and mechanical loading. Statistics: Kaplan–Meier; log-rank tests.

Results

During TCML in group I two tooth fractures and two debondings with chipping were found. Solely chippings occurred in groups II (2×), IV (2×), and III (1×). No significant different survival was found for the different abutments (p = 0.085) or FPDs (p = 0.526). Load capability differed significantly between groups I (176 N) and III (670 N), and III and IV (324 N) (p < 0.024).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of an in vitro study, it can be concluded that zirconia-framework 2U-FPDs on decoronated teeth with/without post showed comparable in vitro reliability as restorations on implants. The results indicated that restorations on teeth with only access cavity perform worse in survival and linear loading.

Clinical relevance

Even severe defects do not justify per se a replacement of this particular tooth by a dental implant from load capability point of view.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fleming CH, Litaker MS, Alley LW, Eleazer PD (2010) Comparison of classic endodontic techniques versus contemporary techniques on endodontic treatment success. J Endod 36:414–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2007) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature—part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J 40:921–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2008) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature—part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 41:6–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goga R, Purton DG (2007) The use of endodontically treated teeth as abutments for crowns, fixed partial dentures, or removable partial dentures: a literature review. Quintessence Int 38:e106–e111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kao RT (2008) Strategic extraction: a paradigm shift that is changing our profession. J Periodontol 79:971–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zitzmann NU, Krastl G, Hecker H, Walter C, Weiger R (2009) Endodontics or implants? A review of decisive criteria and guidelines for single tooth restorations and full arch reconstructions. Int Endod J 42:757–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zitzmann NU, Krastl G, Hecker H, Walter C, Waltimo T, Weiger R (2009) Strategic considerations in treatment planning: deciding when to treat, extract, or replace a questionable tooth. J Prosthet Dent 104:80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T (2003) Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23:313–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Studer SP, Mader C, Stahel W, Scharer P (1998) A retrospective study of combined fixed-removable reconstructions with their analysis of failures. J Oral Rehabil 25:513–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garber DA, Salama MA, Salama H (2001) Immediate total tooth replacement. Compend Contin Educ Dent 22(210–216):218

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tymstra N, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Den Hartog L, Stellingsma K, Meijer HJ (2011) Treatment outcome of two adjacent implant crowns with different implant platform designs in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 38:74–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Salama H, Salama MA, Garber D, Adar P (1998) The interproximal height of bone: a guidepost to predictable aesthetic strategies and soft tissue contours in anterior tooth replacement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 10:1131–1141, quiz 1142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tarnow D, Elian N, Fletcher P, Froum S, Magner A, Cho SC, Salama M, Salama H, Garber DA (2003) Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol 74:1785–1788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Holm-Pedersen P, Lang NP, Muller F (2007) What are the longevities of teeth and oral implants? Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):15–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Iqbal MK, Kim S (2007) For teeth requiring endodontic treatment, what are the differences in outcomes of restored endodontically treated teeth compared to implant-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(Suppl):96–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Torabinejad M, Anderson P, Bader J, Brown LJ, Chen LH, Goodacre CJ, Kattadiyil MT, Kutsenko D, Lozada J, Patel R, Petersen F, Puterman I, White SN (2007) Outcomes of root canal treatment and restoration, implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures, and extraction without replacement: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 98:285–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salinas TJ, Eckert SE (2007) In patients requiring single-tooth replacement, what are the outcomes of implant- as compared to tooth-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(Suppl):71–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R (2007) Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 23:138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(5):316–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roulet JF, Van Meerbeek B (2007) Editorial: statistics: a nuisance, a tool, or a must? J Adhes Dent 9:287–288

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G (2006) Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dent Mater 22:176–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Naumann M, Preuss A, Rosentritt M (2006) Effect of incomplete crown ferrules on load capacity of endodontically treated maxillary incisors restored with fiber posts, composite build-ups, and all-ceramic crowns: an in vitro evaluation after chewing simulation. Acta Odontol Scand 64:31–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosentritt M, Ries S, Kolbeck C, Westphal M, Richter EJ, Handel G (2009) Fracture characteristics of anterior resin-bonded zirconia-fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Investig 13(4):453–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosentritt M, Kolbeck C, Ries S, Gross M, Behr M, Handel G (2008) Zirconia resin-bonded fixed partial dentures in the anterior maxilla. Quintessence Int 39:313–319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anusavice KJ, Kakar K, Ferree N (2007) Which mechanical and physical testing methods are relevant for predicting the clinical performance of ceramic-based dental prostheses? Clin Oral Implants Res Suppl 3:218–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2004) Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 20:963–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sterzenbach G, Karajouli G, Naumann M, Peroz I, Bitter K (2011) Fiber post placement with core build-up materials or resin cements—an evaluation of different adhesive approaches. Acta Odontol Scand ahead of print

  30. Barnes D, Gingell JC, George D, Adachi E, Jefferies S, Sundar VV (2010) Clinical evaluation of an all-ceramic restorative system: a 36-month clinical evaluation. Am J Dent 23:87–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abdul Salam SN, Banerjee A, Mannocci F, Pilecki P, Watson TF (2006) Cyclic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fibre and titanium alloy posts: fracture resistance and failure modes. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 14:98–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stewart GP, Jain P, Hodges J (2002) Shear bond strength of resin cements to both ceramic and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 88:277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ritter AV, Ghaname E, Pimenta LA (2009) Dentin and enamel bond strengths of dual-cure composite luting agents used with dual-cure dental adhesives. J Dent 37:59–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ohlmann B, Fickenscher F, Dreyhaupt J, Rammelsberg P, Gabbert O, Schmitter M (2008) The effect of two luting agents, pretreatment of the post, and pretreatment of the canal dentin on the retention of fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Dent 36:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aksornmuang J, Nakajima M, Foxton RM, Tagami J (2007) Mechanical properties and bond strength of dual-cure resin composites to root canal dentin. Dent Mater 23:226–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kern M, Sasse M (2011) Ten-year survival of anterior all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses. J Adhes Dent 13:407–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ohlmann B, Marienburg K, Gabbert O, Hassel A, Gilde H, Rammelsberg P (2009) Fracture-load values of all-ceramic cantilevered FPDs with different framework designs. Int J Prosthodont 22:49–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ghazy MH, Madina MM, Aboushelib MN (2012) Influence of fabrication techniques and artificial aging on the fracture resistance of different cantilever zirconia fixed dental prostheses. J Adhes Dent 14:161–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wolfart S, Harder S, Eschbach S, Lehmann F, Kern M (2009) Four-year clinical results of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia substructures (Cercon): end abutments vs. cantilever design. Eur J Oral Sci 117:741–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Swain M (2010) Clinical trials in zirconia: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 37:641–652

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rammelsberg P, Schwarz S, Schroeder C, Bermejo JL, Gabbert O (2012) Short-term complications of implant-supported and combined tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02482.x. [Epub ahead of print]

  42. Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley DH (2003) Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater 19:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lertchirakarn V, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2003) Patterns of vertical root fracture: factors affecting stress distribution in the root canal. J Endod 29:523–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1987) Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 66:1636–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Signore A, Benedicenti S, Kaitsas V, Barone M, Angiero F, Ravera G (2009) Long-term survival of endodontically treated, maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or parallel-sided glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown coverage. J Dent 37:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Torbjorner A, Fransson B (2004) A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 17:369–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M (2004) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:667–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bitter K, Noetzel J, Stamm O, Vaudt J, Meyer-Lueckel H, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM (2009) Randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of post placement on failure rate of postendodontic restorations: preliminary results of a mean period of 32 months. J Endod 35:1477–1482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    M. Naumann

  2. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    C. Hohmann

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic Surgery and Implantology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    A. Happe

  4. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Clinic Munich, Munich, Germany

    F. Beuer

  5. Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    R. Frankenberger

  6. Department of Preventive and Operative Dentistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    R. Seemann

  7. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany

    M. Rosentritt

Authors
  1. M. Naumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Hohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Happe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Beuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Frankenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Seemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Rosentritt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Naumann.

Additional information

Naumann M. and Hohmann C. contributed equally to this manuscript

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naumann, M., Hohmann, C., Happe, A. et al. Are implants more reliable than severely compromised endodontically treated teeth as abutments for zirconia-based FPDs?. Clin Oral Invest 17, 1685–1692 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0866-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0866-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation