Mechanical Stability of Zirconia Implant Abutments Supporting Cantilevered Fixed Dental Prostheses After Fatigue Loading

Karasan D., Att W., Sailer I., Canay S.

International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol.34, no.5, pp.615-625, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 34 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.11607/ijp.6700
  • Journal Name: International Journal of Prosthodontics
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, DIALNET
  • Page Numbers: pp.615-625
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical stability and complication rates of titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) abutments restored with cantilevered fixed dental prostheses (cFDPs) when supported by one or two implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 specimens were fabricated. Half of the specimens received one implant, and the other half received two implants to simulate the clinical situation of two or three missing maxillary incisors, respectively. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 8). The Ti-1 and Ti-2 groups received Ti abutments (Anatomic Abutment, Straumann) supporting twoor three-unit metal cFDPs, respectively, while Zr-1 and Zr-2 groups received Zr abutments (IPS e.max Anatomic Abutment, Straumann). Following the cementation of cFDPs using resin cement (Multilink Automix, Ivoclar Vivadent), the specimens were subjected to thermomechanical fatigue load and then subsequently loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine. Following the static loading test, stereomicroscopic analyses (Carl Zeiss) were done to identify the weakest component of the cFDP, abutment, and implant assembly. Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate the effect of the number of supporting implants and abutment material on fracture strength values, and the level of statistical significance was set at 5% (= .05). Results: All specimens survived aging, and no screw loosening or fracture was recorded. The mean fracture strength values were 226 N (± 26.45), 551.12 N (± 82.19), 601 N (± 41.51), and 664.5 N (± 37.59) for Zr-1, Zr-2, Ti-1, and Ti-2, respectively. The difference between fracture strength values of the Ti and Zr groups was significant in favor of Ti abutments (P< .001). The number of supporting implants showed a significantly positive effect on the fracture strength of Zr abutments. Conclusion: Zr abutments demonstrated lower fracture strength values than Ti abutments independent from the number of supporting implants when used under cFDPs. Two implant–supported cFDPs with zirconia abutments have the potential to withstand physiologic forces applied in the anterior region. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:615–625. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6700