Home Comparison of fatigue lifetime of new generation CAD/CAM crown materials on zirconia and titanium abutments in implant-supported crowns: a 3D finite element analysis
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Comparison of fatigue lifetime of new generation CAD/CAM crown materials on zirconia and titanium abutments in implant-supported crowns: a 3D finite element analysis

  • Gonca Deste Gökay ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Gülsüm Gökçimen , Perihan Oyar and Rukiye Durkan
Published/Copyright: July 15, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik
From the journal Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik Volume 69 Issue 6

Abstract

Objectives

Due to the dynamic character of the stomatognathic system, fatigue life experiments simulating the cyclic loading experienced by implant-supported restorations are critical consideration. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different crown and abutment materials on fatigue failure of single implant-supported crowns.

Methods

Models were created for 10 different designs of implant-supported single crowns including two zirconia-reinforced lithium silicates (crystallized and precrystallized), monolithic lithium disilicate, polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks, and polyetheretherketone supported by zirconia and titanium abutments. A cyclic load of 179 N with a frequency of 1 Hz was applied on palatal cusp of a maxillary first premolar at a 30° angle in a buccolingual direction.

Results

In the models with titanium abutments, the polymer-infiltrated ceramic network model had a lower number of cycles to fatigue failure values in the implant (5.07), abutment (2.30), and screw (1.07) compared to others. In the models with zirconia abutments, the crystallized zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate model had a higher number of cycles to fatigue failure values in the abutment (8.52) compared to others. Depending on the fatigue criteria, polyetheretherketone implant crown could fail in less than five year while the other implant crowns exhibits an infinite life on all models.

Conclusions

The type of abutment material had an effect on the number of cycles to fatigue failure values for implants, abutments, and screws, but had no effect on crown materials. The zirconia abutment proved longer fatigue lifetime, and should thus be considered for implant-supported single crowns.

Keywords: finite element analysis; fatigue failure; implant abutments; implantology; material selection
Corresponding author: Gonca Deste Gökay, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Türkiye, E-mail:

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  5. Research funding: None declared.

  6. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

1. Elsayed, A, Wille, S, Al-Akhali, M, Kern, M. Effect of fatigue loading on the fracture strength and failure mode of lithium disilicate and zirconia implant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13034.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Steinebrunner, L, Wolfart, S, Ludwig, K, Kern, M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1276–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01581.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Theoharidou, A, Petridis, HP, Tzannas, K, Garefis, P. Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:681–90.Search in Google Scholar

4. Jung, RE, Holderegger, C, Sailer, I, Khraisat, A, Suter, A, Hämmerle, CH. The effect of all-ceramic and porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tissue color: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2008;28:357–65.Search in Google Scholar

5. Heydecke, G, Zwahlen, M, Nicol, A, Nisand, D, Payer, M, Renouard, F, et al.. What is the optimal number of implants for fixed reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:217–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02548.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Malo, P, de Araujo Nobre, M, Lopes, A. The use of computer-guided flapless implant surgery and four implants placed in immediate function to support a fixed denture: preliminary results after a mean follow-up period of thirteen months. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(07)60005-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Ahmadi, A, Dörsam, I, Stark, H, Hersey, S, Bourauel, C, Keilig, L. The all-on-4 concept in the maxilla-A biomechanical analysis involving high performance polymers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2021;109:1698–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34826.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Sotto-Maior, BS, Carneiro, RC, Francischone, CE, Assis, NMSP, Devito, KL, Senna, PM. Fatigue behavior of different CAD/CAM materials for monolithic, implant-supported molar crowns. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e548–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12922.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Rabel, K, Spies, BC, Pieralli, S, Vach, K, Kohal, RJ. The clinical performance of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:196–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13337.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Pjetursson, BE, Sailer, I, Latyshev, A, Rabel, K, Kohal, RJ, Karasan, D. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:254–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Duarte, SJ, Sartori, N, Phark, JH. Ceramic-reinforced polymers: CAD/CAM hybrid restorative materials. Curr Oral Health Rep 2016;3:198–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-016-0102-2.Search in Google Scholar

12. Fasbinder, DJ, Neiva, GF. Surface evaluation of polishing techniques for new resilient CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28:56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12174.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Schepke, U, Meijer, HJA, Vermeulen, KM, Raghoebar, GM, Cune, MS. Clinical bonding of resin nano ceramic restorations to zirconia abutments: a case series within a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:984–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12382.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Skirbutis, G, Dzingutė, A, Masiliūnaitė, V, Šulcaitė, G, Žilinskas, J. PEEK polymer’s properties and its use in prosthodontics. A review. Stomatologija 2018;20:54–8.Search in Google Scholar

15. Newmann, EA, Villar, CC, Franca, FM. Fracture resistance of abutment screws made of titanium, polyetheretherketone, and carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone. Braz Oral Res 2014;28:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2014.vol28.0028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Zoidis, P, Papathanassiou, I, Polyzois, G. The use of a modified poly-etherether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;7:580–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12325.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Zoidis, P, Bakiri, E, Polyzois, G. Using a modified PEEK as an alternative material for endocrown restorations: a short-term clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:335–7.10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Andrikopoulou, E, Zoidis, P, Artopoulou, II, Doukoudakis, A. Modified PEEK resin bonded fixed dental prosthesis for a young cleft lip and palate patient. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28:201–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12221.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Geng, JP, Keson, BCT, Liv, GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585–98. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115251.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. UNE-EN ISO 14801:2016. Dentistry – implants – dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

21. Lee, H, Jo, M, Noh, G. Biomechanical effects of dental implant diameter, connection type, and bone density on microgap formation and fatigue failure: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2021;200:105863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105863.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Armentia, M, Abasolo, M, Coria, I, Albizuri, J. Fatigue design of dental implant assemblies: a nominal stress approach. Metals 2020;10:744. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10060744.Search in Google Scholar

23. Hernandez, BA, Freitas, JP, Capello Sousa, EA. Fatigue life estimation of dental implants using a combination of the finite element method and traditional fatigue criteria. Proc IME H J Eng Med 2023;237:975–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119231186097.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Kayabası, O, Yuzbasıoglu, E, Erzincanlı, F. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviors of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37:649–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2006.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

25. Lee, CK, Karl, M, Kelly, JR. Evaluation of test protocol variables for dental implant fatigue research. Dent Mater 2009;25:1419–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Hajimiragha, H, Abolbashari, M, Nokar, S, Abolbashari, A, Abolbashari, M. Bone response from a dynamic stimulus on a one-piece and multi-piece implant abutment and crown by finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2014;40:525–32. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00170.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Sahin, SC. Static and dynamic stress analysis of standard- and narrow-diameter implants: a 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35:e58–68. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8037.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Baggi, L, Cappelloni, I, Girolama, MD, Maceri, F, Vairo, G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60259-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Abu Bakar, MS, Cheng, MH, Tang, SM, Yu, SC, Liao, K, Tan, CT, et al.. Tensile properties, tension-tension fatigue and biological response of polyetheretherketone hydroxyapatite composites for load-bearing orthopedic implants. Biomaterials 2003;24:2245–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00028-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Oishi, M, Matsuda, Y, Noguchi, K, Masaki, T. Evaluation of tensile strength and fracture toughness of yttria-stabilized zirconia polycrystals with fracture surface analysis. J Am Ceram Soc 2018;78:1212–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1995.tb08471.x.Search in Google Scholar

31. Dal Piva, AMO, Tribst, JPM, Borges, ALS, Souza, ROAE, Bottino, MA. CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations. Dent Mater 2018;34:1342–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.06.024.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

32. Product catalog 2017/18 complete assortment. https://www.nobelbiocare.com/sites/default/files/81206_ProdCatalog2017-18_GB.pdf [Accessed 13 Sept 2022].Search in Google Scholar

33. Mechanical properties technical data. https://guide.juvoradental.com/collections/-L3-_8rFSiFdlxYcYvGR/doc/-L3TqxGiioeb1LWYfNGH [Accessed 13 Sept 2022].Search in Google Scholar

34. Sannino, G, Gloria, F, Ottria, L, Barlattani, A. Influence of finish line in the distribution of stress through an all ceramic implant-supported crown. A 3D finite element analysis. Oral Implantol 2009;2:14–27.Search in Google Scholar

35. Sevimay, M, Usumez, A, Eskitascioglu, G. The influence of various occlusal materials on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite-element study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;73:140–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30191.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

36. Wendler, M, Belli, R, Petschelt, A, Mevec, D, Harrer, W, Lube, T, et al.. Chairside CAD/CAM materials. Part 2: flexural strength testing. Dent Mater 2017;33:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.10.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Prados-Privado, M, Prados-Frutos, JC, Manchón, Á, Rojo, R, Felice, P, Bea, JA. Dental implants fatigue as a possible failure of implantologic treatment: the importance of randomness in fatigue behaviour. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:825402. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/825402.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

38. Prabhudesai, A, Dhatrak, PN, Padmanabhan, D. Fatigue life prediction of dental implants. Int J Eng Technol Comput Res 2017;5:153–60.Search in Google Scholar

39. Cantó-Navés, O, Medina-Galvez, R, Marimon, X, Ferrer, M, Figueras-Álvarez, Ó, Cabratosa-Termes, J. A 3D finite element analysis model of single implant-supported prosthesis under dynamic impact loading for evaluation of stress in the crown, abutment and cortical bone using different rehabilitation. Materials 2021;14:3519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14133519.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

40. Artunç, C, Sen, F, Güngör, M, Tekin, U, Çömlekoglu, E, Çömlekoğlu, E. Effect of abutment and implant shapes on stresses in dental applications using FEM. Math Comput Appl 2011;16:546–55. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca16020546.Search in Google Scholar

41. Duan, Y, Griggs, JA. Effect of elasticity on stress distribution in CAD/CAM dental crowns: glass ceramic vs. polymer-matrix composite. J Dent 2015;43:742–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

42. Craig, RG. Restorative dental materials. 10th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1997, vol 76:56–7 pp.Search in Google Scholar

43. Ferrario, VF, Sforza, C, Serrao, G, Dellavia, C, Tartaglia, GM. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

44. Yilmaz, B, Alsaery, A, Altintas, SH, Schimmel, M. Comparison of strains for new generation CAD-CAM implant-supported crowns under loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020;22:397–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12894.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

45. Delucchi, F, De Giovanni, E, Pesce, P, Bagnasco, F, Pera, F, Baldi, D, et al.. Framework materials for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: a systematic review of clinical studies. Materials 2021;14:3251. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123251.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

46. Davarpanah, M, Martinez, H, Tecucianu, JF, Celletti, R, Lazzara, R. Small-diameter implants: indications and contraindications. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:186–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00221.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

47. Wang, TM, Leu, LJ, Wang, J, Lin, LD. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:231–7.Search in Google Scholar

48. Henriksson, K, Jemt, T. Evaluation of custom-made procera ceramic abutments for single-implant tooth replacement: a prospective 1-year follow-up study. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:626–30.Search in Google Scholar

49. Kaleli, N, Sarac, D, Külünk, S, Öztürk, Ö. Effect of different restorative crown and customized abutment materials on stress distribution in single implants and peripheral bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:437–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

50. Chen, JY, Pan, YH. Zirconia implant abutments supporting single all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions: a six-year retrospective study. Biomed J 2019;42:358–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.05.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

51. Martínez-Rus, F, Ferreiroa, A, Özcan, M, Bartolomé, JF, Pradíes, G. Fracture resistance of crowns cemented on titanium and zirconia implant abutments: a comparison of monolithic versus manually veneered all-ceramic systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1448–55.Search in Google Scholar

52. Salinas, TJ, Eckert, SE. In patients requiring single-tooth replacement, what are the outcomes of implantdas compared to tooth-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2007;22:71–95.Search in Google Scholar

53. Rammelsberg, P, Lorenzo Bermejo, J, Kappel, S, Meyer, A, Zenthöfer, A. Long-term performance of implant-supported metal–ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns. Long-term performance of implant-supported metal–ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:332–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

54. Vetromilla, BM, Brondani, LP, Pereira-Cenci, T, Bergoli, CD. Influence of different implant-abutment connection designs on the mechanical and biological behavior of single-tooth implants in the maxillary esthetic zone: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

55. Zembich, A, Bösch, A, Jung, RE, Hämmerle, CH, Sailer, I. Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single–implant crowns in canine and posterior region. Clin Oral Implant Res 2013;24:384–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12044.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

56. Ekfeldt, A, Fürst, B, Carlsson, GE. Zirconia abutment for single-tooth implant restorations. Clin Oral Implant Res 2017;28:1303–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12975.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

57. Kim, ES, Shin, SY. Influence of the implant abutment types and the dynamic loading on initial screw loosening. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:21–8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.1.21.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

58. Epifania, E, di Lauro, AE, Ausiello, P, Mancone, A, Garcia-Godoy, F, Mendes Tribst, JP. Effect of crown stiffness and prosthetic screw absence on the stress distribution in implant-supported restoration: a 3D finite element analysis. PLoS One 2023;18:e0285421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285421.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

59. Zhou, X, Zhao, Z, Zhao, M, Fan, Y. The boundary design of mandibular model by means of the three-dimensional finite element method. West China J Stomatol 1999;17:1–6.Search in Google Scholar

60. Teixeira, ER, Sato, Y, Shindoi, N, Shindoi. A comparative evaluation of mandibular finite element models with different lengths and elements for implant biomechanics. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:299–303. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00244.x.Search in Google Scholar

61. Kwan, JC, Kwan, N. Clinical application of PEEK as a provisional fixed dental prosthesis retained by reciprocated guide surfaces of healing abutments during dental implant treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36:581–6. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8465.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2024-01-17
Accepted: 2024-07-04
Published Online: 2024-07-15
Published in Print: 2024-12-17

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Reviews
  3. Perception of defecation intent: applied methods and technology trends
  4. Anatomic variability of the human femur and its implications for the use of artificial bones in biomechanical testing
  5. Research Articles
  6. The intensity of subacute local biological effects after the implantation of ALBO-OS dental material based on hydroxyapatite and poly(lactide-co-glycolide): in vivo evaluation in rats
  7. Comparison of fatigue lifetime of new generation CAD/CAM crown materials on zirconia and titanium abutments in implant-supported crowns: a 3D finite element analysis
  8. Breaking the silence: empowering the mute-deaf community through automatic sign language decoding
  9. The assessment method of lip closure ability based on sEMG nonlinear onset detection algorithms
  10. A multi-chamber soft robot for transesophageal echocardiography: continuous kinematic matching control of soft medical robots
  11. Radiogenomics based survival prediction of small-sample glioblastoma patients by multi-task DFFSP model
https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2024-0017
Keywords for this article
finite element analysis; fatigue failure; implant abutments; implantology; material selection

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Reviews
  3. Perception of defecation intent: applied methods and technology trends
  4. Anatomic variability of the human femur and its implications for the use of artificial bones in biomechanical testing
  5. Research Articles
  6. The intensity of subacute local biological effects after the implantation of ALBO-OS dental material based on hydroxyapatite and poly(lactide-co-glycolide): in vivo evaluation in rats
  7. Comparison of fatigue lifetime of new generation CAD/CAM crown materials on zirconia and titanium abutments in implant-supported crowns: a 3D finite element analysis
  8. Breaking the silence: empowering the mute-deaf community through automatic sign language decoding
  9. The assessment method of lip closure ability based on sEMG nonlinear onset detection algorithms
  10. A multi-chamber soft robot for transesophageal echocardiography: continuous kinematic matching control of soft medical robots
  11. Radiogenomics based survival prediction of small-sample glioblastoma patients by multi-task DFFSP model
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 17.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2024-0017/html
Scroll to top button